aug. 20, 2003 isbe board packet · the monitoring instruments and conducted staff training...

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING August 20, 2003

TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Robert E. Schiller, Superintendent David Wood, Director Agenda Topic: Presentation of External Assurance Procedures Materials: PowerPoint presentation at Board meeting

Staff Contact(s): Robert Wolfe Purpose of Agenda Item To inform the Board regarding procedures utilized by External Assurance to fulfill the agency’s auditing/monitoring requirements Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item The Board will have information about the agency’s efforts to ensure the programmatic and fiscal integrity of the programs administered by the agency. Background Information External Assurance was created in March, 2002 as part of the Agency’s Reorganization. The primary purpose was to consolidate the fiscal and programmatic monitoring function into one division to focus the effort of program staff on Technical Assistance and evaluation of results. Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications None Next Steps None

- 2 -

Concise Update on External Assurance Division • Responsible for the audits of State and Federal Grants and Categorical

Programs.

• Responsible for the monitoring reviews of all the NCLB programs. Developed the monitoring instruments and conducted staff training regarding the NCLB fieldwork monitoring approach.

• Conducted audits and monitoring reviews in key districts such as Chicago Public

Schools, East St Louis SD, Elgin UD, to name but a few.

• As of 7/16/03 conducted fieldwork reviews in 269 districts which equated to 67.8% of the districts within our FY 03 cycle plan to end September 30, 2003.

• Developed a database audit and monitoring system to capture audit and

monitoring data from the beginning phase to the post closing phase. This database system has gone from the test phase and will be in production during our FY 04 audit cycle.

• Developed instruments for the monitoring of the ROE/ISC operations.

Conducted pilot reviews of selected Regional Offices of Education and commencing additional field work reviews of identified Regional Offices of Education within our FY 03 cycle plan.

• Commencing work on the development of the SGSA monitoring instruments for

the Chicago Public schools (CPS) and will conduct these monitoring reviews in our FY 04 cycle.

• Expanding work on the Financial Monitoring of Federal Special Ed. IDEA Flow

Through Part B and Discretionary funds. Monitoring reviews will commence in our FY 04 cycle.

• Developed training manuals for staff and continue to evaluate staff’s technology

skills for adequate training.

• Developed a webpage for the division and will serve as one of the media for communicating with the districts.

• Developed a regional structure for fieldwork comprising of four geographic work

units and one Chicago Public Schools monitoring team. Monthly unit meetings are held to address issues and concerns.

- 3 -


TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Robert E. Schiller, Superintendent Karl Vogl, Chief Internal Auditor Agenda Topic: Presentation of State of Illinois FY02 Single Audit Report Materials: Auditor General’s Report (previously sent on July 25, 2003) Staff Contact(s): Karl Vogl Purpose of Agenda Item To provide the Board with information regarding the report’s contents. Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item The Board will be informed of any issues identified by the Auditor General. Background Information Under the federal Single Audit Act, the Auditor General conducts an annual state-wide audit. The current audit is for Fiscal Year 2002 and includes the State Board’s federal programs because the agency is considered material to the State’s financial statements. Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications This audit has nine findings that relate to federal programs the agency is responsible for. The most significant issues raised indicate that the agency has not met the required on-site monitoring schedules for several of its federal programs. The Superintendent and the Internal Auditor have worked with the directors and their staff to implement the recommendations included in the report. Policy Implications The agency will continue to direct its major focus to its regulatory functions to ensure proper oversight of federal programs, including on-site monitoring of subrecipients.

- 4 -

Budget Implications The agency will need to direct sufficient resources to its regulatory functions to ensure that its obligations for providing adequate program oversight can be met. This will require devoting adequate resources to the monitoring of subrecipients for which several program areas and the External Assurance Division are responsible, as well as adequate staffing of the Internal Audit unit. Legislative Action Pursue appropriate funding for the agency’s functions as discussed above. Superintendent’s Recommendation The Superintendent recommends that the Board accept the Auditor General’s report and continue to advocate adequate funding of the agency’s critical functions. Next Steps Internal Audit will continue to coordinate resolution of the findings and report to the Superintendent. The Superintendent will provide oversight to ensure that the agreed- upon actions are implemented.

- 5 -


TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Robert E. Schiller, Superintendent Lynne Curry, Director Agenda Topic: Presentation of 2003 State ACT Results Materials: PowerPoint presentation at Board meeting (Materials embargoed until August 20, 2003) Staff Contact(s): Mary Anne Graham, Connie Wise Purpose of Agenda Item To inform the Board regarding the performance of the 2003 graduating class on the ACT examination. Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item The Board will have information to inform policy decisions. Background Information The state receives a customized report from ACT on the aggregated tests for the graduating class each year. This includes data from the 11th grade 2002 PSAE examination (ACT embedded) as well as 12th grade PSAE retakes and ACT tests taken on a voluntary basis on national test dates. Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications Annual ACT results are an important barometer of Illinois high school student performance. They provide comparative data with other states and the nation. In addition, ACT/PSAE incorporates a student survey that supplies a rich source of contextual information for interpreting the test results and guiding policy decisions related to student performance. Next Steps Staff will continue to work with ACT and other researchers to interpret the data within the ACT, PSAE and survey materials.

- 6 -


TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Robert E. Schiller, Superintendent Lynne Haeffele Curry, Director Agenda Topic: Presentation of 2003 State Assessment Results

o ISAT, PSAE, IAA, and Image

Materials: Graphs of 2003 Test Performance Staff Contact(s): Lynne Haeffele Curry Connie Wise Andy Metcalf Purpose of Agenda Item To share the results of the 2003 State Assessments with the Illinois State Board of Education. Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item The Board will have an understanding of the performance of Illinois students on the ISAT, PSAE, IAA, and IMAGE. Background Information Each year the results of the state assessments are presented to the State Board of Education. For the first time five-year trend data are available. The five-year assessment data for Illinois elementary and middle school students shows an upward trend in mathematics in all grades tested, a narrowing in the achievement gap in many subjects and grade levels for black, Hispanic, and low-income students, and improvement in the achievement of Limited English Proficient students and students in special education programs. The results also show little movement over three years in all subjects tested at the 11th grade level. Over the last several years the Board has emphasized addressing the problem of narrowing the achievement gaps, and the results of the 2003 assessments show that the gaps are beginning to narrow.

- 7 -

The most recent state assessments were given in April 2003. Elementary and middle school students are tested in reading, writing, and mathematics in grades 3, 5, and 8 and in science and social science in grades 4 and 7. Eleventh graders are tested in reading, writing, math, science, and social science as part of the Prairie State Achievement Test, which also includes the ACT test and two ACT WorkKeys assessments. The results reflect the following: ISAT MATH: The five-year trend data shows continuous increases at all grade levels with the percentage of students meeting or exceeding state standards increasing from 68.3 to 75.7 in grade 3; 55.6 to 68.3 in grade 5; and 42.9 to 53.1 in grade 8. ISAT READING: Five-year data reflect that performance is flat in grades 3 and 5 and down in grade 8. PRAIRIE STATE ACHIEVEMENT TEST: From 2001-03, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding standards fell in reading (57.5 to 56.4), math (53.9 to 53.3), writing (59.0 to 58), and social science (57.8 to 56.2). It increased slightly in science (50.2 to 51.3). IMAGE TEST: The Illinois Measure of Annual Growth in English is given to Limited English Proficient students. Scores improved from 2002 to 2003 at virtually every grade level and subject tested. Notable increases included grade 8 reading (18.5 to 31.3), grade 5 math (22.1 to 32.1), and grade 8 writing (28.2 to 39.5). IAA (Illinois Alternate Assessment): Students with significant disabilities take the IAA. Notable increases were seen in grade 3 reading (44.7 to 59.0), grade 5 reading (42.9 to 57.0), grade 11 writing (24.1 to 39.9), and grade 7 science (28.2 to 43.2). NARROWING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAPS: In numerous subjects and grade levels, black, Hispanic, and low-income students showed significant improvement in narrowing the achievement gap with white students. Particularly positive trends are seen from black students in grade 3 math, where the gap narrowed from 43.8 to 39.6 and grade 7 science (41.6 to 34.5); for Hispanic students in grade 3 math (26.9 to 19.1), grade 5 math (37.4 to 26.0), grade 4 science (41.1 to 33.4), grade 7 science (31.0 to 24.6), grade 3 writing (21.6 to 17.5), grade 5 writing (24.1 to 17.4), and grade 8 writing (28.9 to 17.0); and for low-income students in grade 5 math (37.4 to 31.0). Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action, and Communications Results of a longitudinal study conducted for ISBE by University of Illinois researchers indicated that the number of districts that have aligned their curriculum with the Illinois Learning Standards has reached a plateau and seem to be “stuck” at the present time. By the same token, the same study indicates we are beginning to see a causal

- 8 -

relationship between those schools that implement the standards and improved performance on the state assessments. For students to do well on the state assessments, their curriculum must be aligned with the state standards. Next Steps Staff will continue to analyze the state assessment data and provide the Board with updates.

- 9 -

Quick Snapshot ISAT Reading

• Overall five-year trend is stable except for grade 8.

• Grades 3-5 remain stable with a decline in grade 8.

• Increases for black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and low income in grades 3-5.

• Decreases in grade 8. Math

• Overall five- year trend data indicates continuous increases.

• Increases at all grade levels, especially in grade 5.

• Increases for black, Hispanic, and low income.

Writing

• Overall five-year trend reflects unstable performances.

• Increases in grades 3 and 5. • Grade 5 – data bounce. • Grade 8 – decline.

Science

• Slight decrease in grade 6. • Slight increase in grade 7. • Grade 7 – black, Hispanic, and low

income show increases.

Social Science

• Increases over all. PSAE Reading

• Decreases over all. Mathematics

• Stable. • Writing – slight decrease. • Social Science – decreased. • Science – decreased.

IMAGE

• Reading – increase across all grades. • Math – increase across all grades. • Writing – increase across all grades

except grade 11. IAA:

• Reading – increased across all grades. • Math –increased across all grades. • Writing –increased across all grades. • Science –increased across all grades. • Social Science –increased across all

grades.

- 10 -

1999-2003 Reading ISAT Trends in Percent Meets+Exceeds By Grade

61.3 60.372.2

62.2 58.871.9

62.4 58.765.662.2 59.2

68.062.0 60.4 63.7

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 8

Perc

ent M

eets

+

Exce

eds

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

1999-2003 Mathematics ISAT Trends in Percent Meets+Exceeds By Grade

68.355.6

42.9

69.257.3

46.8

73.861.4

50.4

74.262.9

52.6

75.768.3

53.1

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0


Perc

ent M

eets

+

Exce

eds

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

1999-2003 Writing ISAT Trends in Percent Meets+Exceeds By Grade

56.0

75.3

59.355.5

70.8 69.857.8

69.761.556.6 58.8 62.560.1 64.8 59.0

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0


Perc

ent M

eets

+

Exce

eds

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

- 11 -

2000-2003 Science ISAT Trends in Percent Meets+Exceeds By Grade

64.171.8

65.671.967.2

73.366.5

73.7

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

Grade 4 Grade 7

Perc

ent M

eets

+

Exce

eds

2000 2001 2002 2003

2000-2003 Social Science ISAT Trends in Percent Meets+Exceeds By Grade

59.1 58.360.6 60.259.8 58.660.0 60.4

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

Grade 4 Grade 7

Perc

ent M

eets

+

Exce

eds

2000 2001 2002 2003

- 12 -

2001-2003 PSAE Statewide Results Percent Meets and Exceeds

57.5 53.9 59.050.2

57.858.1 53.6 59.452.7 56.856.4 53.3 58.9

51.3 56.2

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

Reading Mathematics Writing Science Social Science

2001 2002 2003

- 13 -

1999-2003 Writing Grade 3 ISAT Achievement Gap Between Selected Subgroups

31.8 31.0 30.031.7 31.6

21.6 20.918.9 17.6 17.5

27.0 27.6 26.5

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Achi

evem

ent G

ap

Black/White Hispanic/White Poverty/Non-poverty

1999-2003 Reading Grade 3 ISAT Achievement Gap Between Selected Subgroups

42.8 43.1 41.9 42.1 41.3

30.8 29.9 29.6 28.0 26.6

34.3 34.1 33.3

20.025.030.035.040.045.050.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Achi

evem

ent G

ap


1999-2003 Mathematics Grade 3 ISAT Achievement Gap Between Selected Subgroups

43.8 45.742.2 42.2 39.6

26.9 28.123.1 21.3 19.1

31.3 30.9 29.2

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Achi

evem

ent G

ap


- 14 -


36.040.4 40.3 39.2 37.6

34.3 36.132.1 31.334.0 33.035.1

34.9

25.030.035.040.045.050.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Achi

evem

ent G

ap



44.5 45.7 46.8 45.141.2

37.4 37.3 35.131.0

26.0

37.434.6

31.0

20.025.030.035.040.045.050.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Achi

evem

ent G

ap



27.8 26.8 27.6 28.026.0

24.122.5

18.5 19.717.4

25.3 25.523.5

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Achi

evem

ent G

ap


- 15 -


35.7

26.128.028.2 26.5 27.6

26.428.7

24.625.8

26.1

30.4

25.2

15.020.025.030.035.040.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Achi

evem

ent G

ap



41.243.8 45.3

42.7 42.9

34.2 36.2

30.3

36.633.2 33.634.8

31.625.030.035.040.045.050.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Achi

evem

ent G

ap



34.027.7

30.325.0 24.5

28.9

21.8 21.316.0 17.0

27.721.4 22.5

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Achi

evem

ent G

ap


- 16 -

2000-2003 Science Grade 4 ISAT Achievement Gap Between Selected Subgroups

47.2 46.2 44.8 44.241.1

33.434.136.334.734.5

37.0

25.030.035.040.045.050.0

2000 2001 2002 2003

Achi

evem

ent G

ap


2000-2003 Social Science Grade 4 ISAT Achievement Gap Between Selected Subgroups

46.049.8

46.4 44.639.5

38.9 37.735.5

40.5 38.4 37.2

30.035.040.045.050.055.0

2000 2001 2002 2003

Achi

evem

ent G

ap


- 17 -

2000-2003 Science Grade 7 ISAT Achievement Gap Between Selected Subgroups

41.638.6 38.3

34.531.0

24.626.427.8 26.428.029.6

20.025.030.035.040.045.0

2000 2001 2002 2003

Achi

evem

ent G

ap


2000-2003 Social Science Grade 7 ISAT Achievement Gap Between Selected Subgroups

41.4 38.6 39.0 40.734.0 33.1

30.7 29.6 28.232.7 32.5

0.010.020.030.040.050.0

2000 2001 2002 2003

Achi

evem

ent G

ap


- 18 -

7.5

36.1

44.8

11.6

9.5

37.2

46.6

6.7

6.3

34.8

49.5

9.4

10.7

38.0

40.0

11.3

8.0

35.8

41.7

14.5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Reading Mathematics Writing Science Social Science

2003 PSAE Statewide Performance Levels

Academic Warning Below Standards Meets Standards Exceeds Standards

- 19 -

2001-2003 PSAE Reading

65.3

30.6 34.9

63.0

31.7

57.566.1

31.8 35.9

63.7

32.7

58.164.6

31.2 34.3

62.5

31.6

56.4

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic

Hispanic Not Low Income Low Income AllPerc

ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003

2001-2003 PSAE Mathematics

62.9

19.528.1

60.2

23.8

53.962.8

19.228.7

60.1

24.0

53.662.7

20.529.4

60.3

24.9

53.3

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic


ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003

2001-2003 PSAE Writing

66.9

30.235.0

64.9

30.6

58.967.6

31.9 34.7

65.6

31.3

59.467.8

30.8 34.2

65.9

30.3

58.9

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic


ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003

- 20 -

2001-2003 PSAE Science

59.8

15.722.8

56.8

18.9

50.2

62.6

18.425.1

59.7

20.9

52.761.4

17.425.8

58.7

21.2

51.3

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic


ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003

2001-2003 PSAE Social Science

66.7

25.534.1

64.2

27.7

57.865.6

24.735.2

63.3

27.5

56.865.3

24.835.1

63.3

27.7

56.2

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic


ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003

- 21 -

2001-2003 ISAT Reading Grade 3

75.7

33.846.1

74.2

39.9

62.476.1

34.048.1

74.4

40.3

62.276.0

34.749.4

74.6

41.3

62.0

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic

Hispanic Not LowIncome

Low Income All

Perc

ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003

2001-2003 ISAT Mathematics Grade 3

86.6

44.4

63.5

84.6

53.3

73.887.5

45.3

66.2

85.3

54.4

74.288.5

48.8

69.4

86.8

57.6

75.7

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic


Low Income All

Perc

ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003

2001-2003 ISAT Writing Grade 3

66.8

36.847.9

66.9

39.9

57.866.5

34.848.9

66.4

38.8

56.670.3

38.752.8

70.0

43.560.1

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic


Low Income All

Perc

ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003

- 22 -

2001-2003 ISAT Science Grade 4

81.2

35.044.9

78.7

41.7

65.6

82.4

37.648.3

79.8

45.3

67.2

81.7

37.548.3

79.7

45.0

66.5

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic

Hispanic Not Low Income Low Income All

Perc

ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003

2001-2003 ISAT Social Science Grade 4

77.5

27.738.6

75.0

34.5

60.7

75.9

29.538.2

73.9

35.5

59.8

78.6

33.943.0

77.0

39.9

62.9

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic


Perc

ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003

2001-2003 ISAT Science Grade 7

83.0

44.455.2

80.5

50.9

71.984.8

46.558.4

82.1

54.1

73.384.2

49.759.6

82.4

56.0

73.7

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic


Perc

ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003

2001-2003 ISAT Social Science Grade 7

71.6

33.040.9

69.6

36.9

60.170.6

31.641.0

68.8

36.3

58.672.6

31.944.4

71.4

38.2

60.4

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic


Perc

ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003

- 23 -


72.3

32.0 37.2

70.5

35.6

58.772.6

33.440.5

71.4

37.4

59.173.5

35.9 42.2

72.8

39.8

60.4

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic


Low Income All

Perc

ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003


76.4

29.641.3

74.1

36.7

61.4

77.3

32.2

46.3

75.3

40.7

62.9

81.3

40.1

55.3

80.0

49.0

68.3

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic


Low Income All

Perc

ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003


78.1

50.559.6

78.2

52.9

69.867.7

39.748.0

67.9

42.4

58.873.0

47.055.7

73.6

50.264.8

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic


Low Income All

Perc

ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003

- 24 -


76.4

40.747.7

74.3

43.9

65.676.8

48.8 51.0

75.2

50.0

68.073.0

45.3 46.9

72.0

46.0

63.7

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic


ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003


63.8

18.529.0

60.9

24.3

50.464.8

22.133.2

62.1

28.9

52.665.8

22.935.5

63.8

30.2

53.1

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic


Perc

ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003


69.9

39.648.6

69.3

41.6

61.569.1

44.153.1

68.6

47.262.566.1

41.649.1

66.1

43.6

59.0

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic


Perc

ent M

eets

+ E

xcee

ds

2001 2002 2003

- 25 -

2002-2003 Reading IAA Trends in Percent Progressing+Attaining By Grade

44.7 42.9 45.131.6

59.0 57.0 48.4 44.7

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11

Perc

ent P

ress

ing

+ A

ttain

ing

2002 2003

2002-2003 Mathematics IAA Trends in Percent Progressing+Attaining By Grade

41.9 43.0 44.332.8

54.5 51.3 43.6 38.9

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11Perc

ent P

rogr

essi

ng +

A

ttain

ing

2002 2003

2002-2003 Writing IAA Trends in Percent Progressing+Attaining By Grade

42.2 38.7 41.624.1

52.9 49.2 42.4 39.9

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0


ent P

rogr

essi

ng +

A

ttain

ing

2002 2003

- 26 -

2002-2003 Science IAA Trends in Percent Progressing+Attaining By Grade

31.9 28.2 29.244.8 43.2 36.8

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 11Perc

ent P

rogr

essi

ng +

A

ttain

ing

2002 2003

2002-2003 Social Science IAA Trends in Percent Progressing+Attaining By Grade

31.4 27.3 26.341.6 37.3 32.3

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 11Perc

ent P

rogr

essi

ng +

A

ttain

ing

2002 2003

- 27 -

2002-2003 Reading IMAGE Trends in Percent Expanding+Transitioning By Grade

37.9 30.518.5

5.8

41.1 33.1 31.3

9.5

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0


ent E

xpan

ding

+

Tran

sitio

ning

2002 2003

2002-2003 Mathematics IMAGE Trends in Percent Meeting+Exceeding By Grade

41.422.1 18.0 23.4

48.732.1

20.7 24.3

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0

Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11

Perc

ent M

eetin

g +

Exce

edin

g

2002 2003

2002-2003 Writing IMAGE Trends in Percent Expanding+Transitioning By Grade

75.1

45.428.2 19.9

82.1

52.139.5

18.4

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0


ent E

xpan

ding

+

Tran

sitio

ning

2002 2003

- 28 -

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING

State Board Room 100 North First Street Springfield, IL 62777

June 16-17, 2003

MEMBERS PRESENT: Ronald Gidwitz Marjorie B. Branch Dean Clark Judy Gold Joyce Karon Gregory Kazarian Richard Sandsmark Janet Steiner Beverly Turkal State Superintendent: Robert E. Schiller MEMBERS ABSENT: None Convene Meeting/Roll Call Due Process Hearing Officers

The State Board of Education’s, Education Policy Planning Committee and the Finance and Audit Committee met at 9:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. respectively. The Governmental Affairs Committee meeting was cancelled. A closed session began at 11:40 a.m. and adjourned at 1:10 p.m. The General meeting of the State Board of Education was called to order at 1:15 p.m. by the Chair, Dr. Janet Steiner, who asked Kay Evans, assistant to Board Services, to call the roll. A quorum was present. Chair, Dr. Steiner indicated that the technology staff would be making the audio portion of the meeting available via the Internet. Dr. Steiner called for Agenda Item: Approval of Due Process Hearing Officers Contracts. Superintendent Schiller gave background information. The Due Process Screening Committee recommended the reappointment of hearing officers whose terms expire June 30, 2003.

- 29 -

New Teacher Preparation Programs Teacher Cert Board Appointments Appointments Bd of Ed – Dept of Corrections 428 NCLB IL Accountability Plan

Dr. Steiner called for agenda item: New Teacher Preparation Programs. Superintendent Schiller said we have recommendations from for the State Teacher Certification Board to approve proposals from –Concordia University, Elmhurst College and St. Xavier University to offer alternative teacher certification in secondary areas of math and science; and from Illinois State University to offer Special Education (pre-school-age 21) Certificate Program for LBS II in the areas of: Deaf-Blind Specialist, Multiple Disabilities Specialist, and Transition Specialist. Dr. Steiner called for agenda item: Teacher Certification Board Appointments. Superintendent Schiller said the statute requires the State Board of Education to appoint members from specific categories of education to the Teachers Certification Board for a term of 3 years (members are allowed to serve two terms.) The Certification Board has two members retiring, and the IL Education Association (IEA) has recommended that Ms. Mary Jane Morris and Ms. Linda Malone replace these two retirees. The reappointment to a second term for Ms. Marsha Allen was recommended by the IL Federation of Teachers. Dr. Andrew Brulle was recommended by the IL Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Dr. Eugene Zalewski was recommended by the IL Association of School Administrators.) Chair Steiner called for agenda item: Appointments to the Board of Education, Department of Corrections District #428. Superintendent Schiller said that statute states that the State Board of Education is required to appoint four of the nine members of the Department of Corrections #428, to their Board. To answer questions, Jimmy Gunnell, Division Administrator for Special Education came forward. (He had previously worked at the Department of Corrections.) At the request of Ron Gidwitz, Mr. Gunnell said he would make a request of the Superintendent, LeAnn Miller, for copies of reports on the progress and assessment of students in the correctional facilities to share with the State Board. Dr. Steiner called for agenda item: NCLB Illinois Accountability Plan. Superintendent Schiller said that the Board’s proposed Illini Plan would not be accepted by the federal government without changes to allow for steps in equal increments. The Assessment Task Force met to find a solution to comply with this federal requirement but also

- 30 -

Highly Qualified Teachers Thomas Jefferson Charter School

to keep in tact what they were trying to accomplish. The Task Force adopted these changes with a recommendation that the State Board of Education accept them. Regarding test specifications, specifically the untimed test issue following the Board’s action (motion) at the May, 2003 meeting, Gail Lieberman, Director, Standards Aligned Learning, informed the Board the Task Force was concerned that the 5 minutes across the board was insufficient specifically in terms of reading and math which counts toward Adequate Yearly Progress. The Task Force recommended that it be requested of the test publishers that the new test design allow for a brief extended time in reading and math. These providers would then inform us of how this can be accomplished and the Board would review their responses at a later date. Dr. Steiner called for agenda item: Illinois Criteria for Meeting the NCLB Requirements for Highly Qualified Teachers. Superintendent Schiller provided each member a new ‘draft’ of this Report (see attachment B.) The Superintendent said the State Boards’ Education Policy Planning Committee discussed every aspect of this item and would take into consideration input from the field, the Certification Board, as well as conversations with stakeholders. He gave an overview of the criteria for meeting the NCLB’s requirements for being ‘highly qualified’ teachers, and the terms used in these criteria for Academic Major, Arts, Content Area Test, Core Academic Subjects, Current Teachers, Elementary/Middle Grades Test, and Primary Responsibility – he stopped to say the Current Teacher definition is one who has received their first teacher certificate in Illinois as of June 30, 2002, and New Teachers were those who received their first certificate on or after July 1, 2002. Superintendent Schiller addressed the changes made on the recommendation of legal counsel regarding Part I, Current Teachers #2, and Part II, Special Circumstances, Vocational Certificate Holders. Leigh Ann Reichle, of the Legal Department stepped forward to explain the changes to the original draft dated June 16, 2003 and why these additional definitions were added. Dr. Steiner called for agenda item: Thomas Jefferson Charter School Renewal.

- 31 -

Notices of Objection

Superintendent Schiller explained the options to the Board. Note that there was a revised page (see attachment D). A lengthy discussion followed. Janet Alison, staff, answered questions of the Board members with regard to special education and the lack of documentation of visits to the school, and the school’s understanding of following special education criteria. Legal Counsel, Respicio Vazquez advised that this discussion be held in closed session. He said the State Board of Education should not assume that it has the legal obligation to advise the school of the requirements of special education. Dr. Steiner called for agenda item: Institutional Accreditation and Notices of Objection. Superintendent Schiller said materials were provided to the Board members that included relevant background information and evidence provided by the institutions to support their objections. He said according to statute the State Board of Education recognizes teacher education institutions and approves teacher preparation programs in consultation with the State Teacher Certification Board. He gave further background information on procedures, including an institution’s right to challenge this recommendation of accreditation status assigned to them, by a Notice of Objection. Those institutions brought forward today were: Blackburn College, University of Chicago, and the University of Illinois-Champaign. The Superintendent gave background on each of these schools. General Counsel advised that each member state if they had a conflict of interest with any of the above schools with regard to present affiliation, former affiliation or employment, or immediate family members’ affiliation with any of the schools, especially before they voted, or now before discussion. Following are their disclosures: Greg Kazarian – graduate of University of Illinois Marjorie Branch – University of Chicago Dean Clark – Blackburn College Judith Gold – graduate University of Chicago Ron Gidwitz – affiliate of foundation which prior to joining the Board contributed chairs to the University of Chicago, one of which is in the

- 32 -

Request for Waiver – Oak Park S.D. Rules FY04 Budget

School of Social Services which he thinks has jurisdiction over some of these programs. He said he had no conflict but did not want to have the appearance of conflict. Janet Steiner – Blackburn College Dick Sandsmark – none Beverly Turkal – none Dr. Steiner asked for agenda item: Request for Waiver of State Board Rule – Cost Proration Related to Pupil Transportation) –Oak Park Elementary School. David Wood, Director, Operations, gave a background of this item, and said the school was caught in a rule that was put in place as a cost containment rule. The school, acting in good faith, went through a bidding process and ended up being treated differently by the rule this year because one contractor won both contracts than in the past when two separate contractors won separate contracts. The school and the State Board agency both see the situation differently. He said this particular situation could set precedence for other schools. Ms. Wilson of Oak Park District 97 spoke on behalf of the school district and their waiver request. Dr. Steiner called for agenda item: Rules for Adoption: Part 25 (Certification), Part 25 (Emergency) and Part 27 (Standards for Certification in Specific Teaching Fields) & Rules for Initial Review – Part 25 (Certification; companion to Emergency) Superintendent Schiller gave a brief background of these Rules. Staff member Sally Vogl, and Lee Patton, Acting Director of Certification and Professional Preparation, were present to answer questions and give clarification as needed. A five minute break was taken. Dr. Steiner said the next order of business was to discuss agenda item: Finance, Audit and Agency Operations Status Superintendent Schiller said if there were questions, David Wood would respond. There were no questions. Chair Steiner called for agenda item: ISBE Agency Budget for FY04.

- 33 -

Venice S.D. Hazel Crest Budget FY04

Superintendent Schiller explained the status of the agency’s appropriations and funding, and explained the problems the agency was facing. Personnel positions and monies to fund these positions (state and federal) were presented. He stated we lost approximately 30% of state funding for personnel. In order to have a balanced personnel budget in concurrence with the state budget allocated, we would have to target reduction of 48 positions. He stated they would only be hiring if there were federal funding available for the position, or in the case of a state funded position, only if there is money available or it is a critical position. Superintendent Schiller reviewed the financial status of the Venice Community Unit School District #3. David Wood gave a quick overview of the situation. Mr. Farmer, Superintendent of Venice CUSD #3, Mr. Eddie Salmond, Board Treasurer, Ms. Ruby Johnson, Board President, and their attorney, Mr. Benjamin Edwards came forward to discuss the financial and fiscal condition of their school district. Don Full, Manager, Accountability, came forward to give an accounting of the agency’s part in this. The Superintendent said the mechanisms were to step in, in our legal capacity, and take statutory action and not fund the school from the state aid perspective; on behalf of federal funds for special education and children not being provided, to step in to assure services are provided and directly funded at state level; and thirdly, establish a financial oversight panel. Mr. Salmond said it was the feeling of the present board to have a voluntary oversight panel. It was decided the Venice board would go back for a special board meeting. Chair, Steiner called for agenda item: Hazel Crest School District FY04 budget. Superintendent Schiller gave an update on the Hazel Crest School District and the school finance authority. He gave good news when he reported that six months later the SFA has recommended to reorganize the district, to close two elementary schools, but keep the class sizes in the low teens or low twenties; and reworked the budget to reduce administrative costs. They will open this coming year with a $330,000 fund balance which includes paying back the first year

- 34 -

State Education Budget Closed Session Adjournment Reconvene Teacher of Year Introduction

loan from the State, making all their payments, and a projected negotiated agreement with their unions. Donna LuAllen, Manager, School Finance, came forward to answer questions and gave additional input outlining her many visits to the school district. Superintendent Schiller gave an overview of the State Education budget. David Wood was present to give additional input. Mr. Schiller said what we requested and what was given was quite close. Joyce Karon said the Board would like to commend staff for the quality work and tenacity shown through this arduous process. Chair Steiner asked for a motion to go into Closed Session. Ron Gidwitz read the motion as follows: I move that the State Board of Education go into closed session under the exceptions set forth in the Open Meetings Act of the State of Illinois as follows: Section 2 (c) (1) for the purpose of discussing information regarding appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of an employee. Section 2 (c) (11) for the purpose of discussing litigation. The Board is authorized to invite anyone into these meetings as needed. Joyce Karon seconded the motion. The Board adjourned the General session at 5:00 p.m. to go into closed session at the Renaissance Hotel, Springfield, IL. The Board reconvened at 9:30 a.m. on June 17, 2003 at the Illinois State Board of Education’s Board Room, Springfield, IL. Dr. Janet Steiner, Chair called the meeting to order and asked Kay Evans, Assistant to Board Services, to call the roll. A quorum was present as all members were present. Dr. Steiner introduced the FY03-04 Illinois Teacher of the Year, Mr. David Morrison from Mt. Prospect, IL. Mr. Morrison gave a few words.

- 35 -

Carlinville Middle School Science Team Nat’l Finalists Student Advisory Council Public Participation AFSCME U of I – C

Dr. Steiner then introduced the Carlinville Middle School Science Team National Finalists. She introduced Mr. Nicholson, Principal; Regional Superintendent for Macoupin County, Larry Pfeiffer; Teacher, Russ Tepen; and four students: Luke Pullman, Mike Rule, Chris Strobeck, and Chris Walker. Mr. Tepen spoke on the science project they had entered in order to win this recognition which was on the West Nile Virus, and the students gave a presentation/skit on mosquitoes and how to reduce chances of contracting this disease. They gave their web address as www.swatskiters.org. Dr. Steiner read a Board Resolution for their accomplishment and presented it to Mr. Tepen. Next, Dr. Steiner introduced Andrew Schwarm, Student Advisory Council to the State Board of Education. Advisors Dr. Marilyn Holt and Mike Kotner accompanied him. She also named Dr. Robert Buser who was unable to be in attendance. Andrew gave a presentation of how the SAC had helped him and his fellow students, and what it has meant to the students that comprise this Council. He said the SAC would like to encourage the State Board to take a leadership role in the nation, as well as the state, to further global education. Dr. Steiner handed out “Certificates of Appreciation” to Andrew, Marilyn Holt and Mike Kotner for their services to the Student Advisory Council. She said we would mail certificates to each of the students along with Joe Turek, ISBE staff, who put in time to work with these students, and student, LaTasha Crow who also served as a student advisor/liaison. Dr. Steiner called for public participation. First was AFSCME Local 2811 President, Jamie Johnson, representing the support staff of ISBE, and union member Alisha Lynch. Alisha read a statement of concern for the support employees regarding the need to retain their jobs. Ron Gidwitz said, for the record, our budget that was submitted to the Legislature had a personnel level of 640 people opposed to 538 or below. He said this Board had not desired or budgeted for this reduction, and the Board clearly did not want to see these additional reductions. He said, speaking for himself, that he thinks these individuals are right. Sheryl Benson, Executive Director of the Council on Teacher Education, and Susan Fowler, Dean, College of Education, UIUC,

- 36 -

Jeff Williams, Parent Loris Fleming and Sons Terry Giosta, Parent Chicago Teachers Union Approval of Minutes

Champaign, IL spoke on the Notice of Objection – Accreditation Review at University of Illinois – Champaign. They said they raised concerns about the review process. They were among the first group of universities reviewed in the fall of 01-02 academic year, which was the first year the NCATE standards were used to evaluate educational units. Further, they said they fully intend to continue to engage in ongoing review and improvement of their programs, and do not believe it would be fruitful or cost-effective to incur the time and expense required of a focus visit as recommended in the accreditation team report. They think they have proved, during their on-sight visit, they have met the 6 NCATE standards and their continual efforts to address weakness stated in the team report. Dr. Steiner, Chair, called Jeff Williams, a parent to speak. He spoke on behalf of his special education child and the memo released on April 10 by Chris Koch directed to Special Education departments concerning the OSEP investigation and review. He was concerned that this memo did not filter down to parents so they were uninformed. Beverly Turkal said it seems the glitch is between the districts and the parents. She recommended he contact his district to get this straightened out. Dr. Steiner, Chair called Mrs. Lori Fleming with her sons Logan and Steven Fleming who spoke on behalf of herself and PACE (Parents Align for Compliance in Education), a statewide parents group, located in Chicago. She spoke on non-compliance, lack of prior notice of child movement to parents, and proper management of behavior. Dr. Steiner, Chair, called for Terry Giosta, parent of 5 children from Midland School District. He spoke on local control and the impact the State Board of Education has on rural schools, and what happens when local control is gone in the school board and they are not getting correct facts from them. He has a special education student. He asked if he could mail information into the Board, which Dr. Steiner said was fine. At Mr. Gidwitz’s recommendation they moved Mr. Marty McGreal, from the Chicago Teachers Union up in order to have the participants from the Thomas Jefferson Charter School talk prior to the voting. Mr. McGreal talked about the NCLB – highly qualified issue. He said he would like to thank Lee Patton for going out of her way to seek advice from all around the state before jumping into this issue. Dr. Steiner, in continuing with the agenda, called for approval of the May 12-13 minutes.

- 37 -

Motion - Due Process Hearing Officers Vote on Motion New Teacher Preparation Motion

Dick Sandsmark gave the motion to accept the May 12-13, 2003 minutes as presented. Marjorie Branch seconded the motion. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: Dick Sandsmark – yes Janet Steiner – yes Beverly Turkal - yes Marjorie Branch – yes Dean Clark - yes Ron Gidwitz – yes Judith Gold – yes Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian – yes Dr. Steiner said each item on the agenda was reviewed by the full Board prior to this meeting, that she would ask the Superintendent for a summary of the item, will then call for a motion and second, and will allow further Board discussion to be followed by the vote. Superintendent Schiller provided the recommendation of the Due Process Hearing Officers Contract, and gave a brief summary. Dick Sandsmark said he would move that the State Board of Education reappoint the following hearing officers who terms expired June 30, 2003, for an additional 2-year term. Charles Arschenbrenner Stacey Stutzman Vivian Gordon Alan Cook Robert Ladenson Julia Quinn Dempsey Frank Norwik Nancy Hablutzel Ron Gidwitz seconded the motion. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: Dick Sandsmark – yes Janet Steiner – yes Beverly Turkal - yes Marjorie Branch – yes Dean Clark - yes Ron Gidwitz – yes Judith Gold – yes Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian – yes Superintendent Schiller said the State Teacher Certification Board has provided recommendations for the approval of new preparation programs at Concordia University, Elmhurst College and St. Xavier University and Illinois State University. Joyce Karon said she moved that the State Board of Education provisionally approve the following programs, thereby authorizing the

- 38 -

Vote on Motion State Teacher Membership Motion Vote on Motion

institutions to conduct the programs and to recommend candidates for certification by entitlement until the time of the institution’s next scheduled review: Concordia University, Elmhurst College and St. Xavier University – Alternative Teacher Certification Program in secondary areas of: Mathematics and Science Illinois State University – Special Education (Pre-School-Age 21) Certificate – Learning Behavior Specialist II in three areas: Deaf-Blind Specialist Multiple Disabilities Specialist Transitional Specialist Dick Sandsmark seconded the motion. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion which passed with the following votes: Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian - yes Dick Sandsmark - yes Janet Steiner – yes Beverly Turkal - yes Marjorie Branch – yes Dean Clark - yes Ron Gidwitz – yes Judith Gold - yes Superintendent Schiller said the State Certification Board has five vacancies and have received nominations. Marjorie Branch gave the motion that the Illinois State Board of Education appoint the following individuals to serve on the State Teacher Certification Board: Ms. Marsha Allen (second term) Illinois Federation of Teachers Ms. Mary Jane Morris and Ms. Linda Malone – IL Education Association Dr. Andrew Brulle (second term) IL Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Dr. Eugene Zalewski (second term) IL Association of School Administrators Dean Clark seconded the motion. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion which passed with the following votes: Marjorie Branch – yes Dean Clark - yes Ron Gidwitz – yes Judith Gold – yes Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian – yes Dick Sandsmark – yes Janet Steiner – yes Bev Turkal - yes

- 39 -

Dept of Corrections Bd Members Motion Vote on Motion Accountability Plan First motion First amendment

Superintendent Schiller gave a brief synopsis of the appointments to the Board of Education of the Department of Corrections District #428. Ron Gidwitz moved that the Illinois State Board of Education appoint the following individuals to serve on the Board of Education Department of Corrections District #428: Ms. Peggy Ashline Mr. Jorge Montes Mr. John Newsom Ms. Katie Wright Joyce Karon seconded the motion. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion which passed with the following votes: Ron Gidwitz – yes Joyce Karon – yes Judith Gold – yes Greg Kazarian – yes Dick Sandsmark – yes Janet Steiner – yes Beverly Turkal – yes Marjorie Branch – yes Dean Clark – yes Dr. Steiner Chair, called for agenda item: NCLB: Illinois Accountability Plan. Superintendent Schiller stated that the Accountability Task Force has two recommendations for the Board to consider: 1) the recommendation of untimed tests as part of test specifications provided in the upcoming RFP; and 2) amend the Illini Plan in accordance with the U.S. Department of Education directive. Dean Clark read part of the motion: “I move that the Illinois State Board of Education hereby approve that the Task Force’s recommendation on untimed tests be included in the information or test specifications that will be used later this summer for new test development.” Greg Kazarian asked if the motion could be broken up into two parts because, in consultation with Legal Counsel regarding the testing issue, they would like to propose alternative language to that which was written. With regard to the alternative language being added, Beverly Turkal gave the motion, “ the information on test specifications that will be used in the new test development for the state assessments late this year invite test publishers to propose, in compliance with agency

- 40 -

Second amendment Vote on motion Motion Reread on Amendment

procurement requirements, if appropriate and statistically valid, a test design which allows the estimated 2% of students who are continuously productively engaged in completing the test who need the additional time within which to complete the test.” Marjorie Branch seconded the motion. Greg Kazarian explained that what this would do is invite test development companies to provide us guidance if this could be accomplished and was statistically valid in a reasonable way. He said they wanted to make it clear to the publishers it was not a requirement for their submission to us that they give us an open test design, but they are invited to do so if it is statistically valid and reasonable. He said the 2% language regarding those who are continuously advancing came from the Task Force Recommendations, and it defines who we are talking about. Ron Gidwitz said he would like to make an amendment to this amendment so that a test vendor only be allowed to make one submission. If the issue is credibility, if they can submit a test that is statistically valid, then they need to only make one submission to satisfy the requirements and that should be the one we accept. Joyce Karon said she did not find fault in what Ron was trying to do, but she objected to putting in a percentage because we were making an assumption that it is only 1-2% group. What if it is more? Greg Kazarian seconded Mr. Gidwitz’s amendment to the motion. In answer to Joyce Karon’s comments, he said we have tried to respect and consider with some weight the work and the Task Force’s language. He said it was not an open test design and he did not want to go there. He wanted to only focus on those 1-2% of the students. Greg said he would settle on “a small percentage of students who are continuously, productively….” Dr. Steiner called for a vote on Mr. Gidwitz’s second amendment which unanimously passed with the following votes: Marjorie Branch – yes Dean Clark – yes Ron Gidwitz – yes Judy Gold – yes Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian - yes Richard Sandsmark – yes Janet Steiner – yes Bev Turkal – yes For clarity, Bev Turkal again read her amendment which now stated, “the information on test specifications that will be used in new test development for the state assessments later this year, invite test publishers to propose, in compliance with agency procurement

- 41 -

Vote on amendment Vote on first motion Motion on Illini Plan Vote on motion

requirements, if appropriate and statistically valid, a test design which allows, with a small percent of students who are continuously, productively engaged in completing the test, some additional time in which to complete the test.” Marjorie Branch seconded the motion. Chair Steiner asked for a roll call vote on the amendment which passed with the following votes: Beverly Turkal – yes Marjorie Branch – yes Ron Gidwitz - yes Dean Clark – yes Judy Gold – yes Joyce Karon - yes Dick Sandsmark – yes Greg Kazarian - yes Janet Steiner – yes Dr. Steiner, Chair asked for a roll call vote on the first motion as read by Dean Clark. Dean Clark - yes Ron Gidwitz - yes Judy Gold – yes Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian – yes Janet Steiner – yes Marjorie Branch – yes Beverly Turkal – yes Dick Sandsmark – yes Joyce Karon then moved that the State Board of Education hereby approve that the Task Force’s recommendation on the revised Illini Plan be accepted and then submitted as accepted to the U.S. Department of Education for consideration as part of the overall accountability plan. Marjorie Branch seconded the motion. Ron Gidwitz explained that this was discussed at Monday’s meeting where the adjustment was made to accommodate the concerns expressed by USDE Under Secretary Eugene Hickok for some nominal changes in the progression over time to accommodate the statutory language in the NCLB legislation. Dr. Steiner called for a roll call vote which passed unanimously with the following votes: Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian - yes Dick Sandsmark – yes Janet Steiner – yes Beverly Turkal – yes Marjorie Branch - yes Dean Clark - yes Ron Gidwitz - yes Judith Gold - yes Dr. Steiner called for discussion and motion on Highly Qualified Teachers Policy.

- 42 -

Highly Qualified Motion Vote on motion Thomas Jefferson Charter School Final Decision Standard of Review

Superintendent Schiller said we discussed this item in great detail Monday. He said the NCLB Legislation requires that all state boards of education define a policy where each teacher in their respective areas of certification, are considered highly qualified, by meeting 3 basic requirements: 1) a bachelors degree, 2) full state certification, and 3) demonstrated subject matter competency in the areas taught. Joyce Karon moved that the Illinois State Board of Education approve the Illinois Criteria for meeting the NCLB Requirements for Highly Qualified Teachers as outlined in the document named such and dated June 17, 2003. Ron Gidwitz seconded the motion. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion that passed with the following votes: Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian – yes Dick Sandsmark - yes Janet Steiner – yes Beverly Turkal – yes Marjorie Branch – yes Dean Clark – yes Ron Gidwitz - yes Judith Gold – yes Superintendent Schiller said this document will be noted as final and adopted and put on our website. Superintendent Schiller said we have a request from the Thomas Jefferson Charter School for a renewal of their existing charter for an additional 5 years. The Board has the opportunity to consider whether to renew the charter for the requested term, to renew it for less than the requested term, or deny the application for the renewal. Ron Gidwitz read that it was very clear that the matter before the Illinois State Board of Education is of great concern to may people. The Thomas Jefferson Charter School has asked to have their charter renewed for a period of five years. The State Board of Education as the chartering entity may refuse or may renew the charter in accordance with the Illinois Charter School Law. Pursuant to 105ILCS 5/27A-9(c) the Illinois State Board of Education has the authority and discretion to refuse to renew a charter if it clearly demonstrated that a charter did any of the following or otherwise failed to comply with the requirements of this law. The following are: Committed a material violation of any of the conditions, standards, or procedures set forth in the charter.

- 43 -

Motion Public Participation on Thomas Jefferson Charter School

Failed to meet or make reasonable progress toward achievement of the content standards or pupil performance standards identified in the charter. Failed to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management. Violated any provision of law from which the charter school was not exempted. (He said this was the motion)…With respect to the final decision, the Illinois State Board of Education reviewed the Recommendation of the State Superintendent. However, the Illinois State Board of Education hereby renews the charter of Thomas Jefferson Charter School for one year subject to receipt and approval of Thomas Jefferson Charter School’s submission of an approved accountability plan and compliance with all special education requirements under IDEA by August 1, 2003. Said renewal is subject to a reduced 80% per capita tuition rate (‘PCTR”). Further, the Thomas Jefferson Charter School shall be awarded a charter by the State Board of Education upon execution of a charter school agreement with the State Superintendent of Education. This will be a final administrative decision and is subject to judicial review as provided under Section 17A-9(e) of the Charter Schools Law. Dean Clark seconded the motion. The meeting broke for a break, and returned 5 minutes later. Copies of the motion were distributed to the audience. Dr. Steiner said there were individuals from the Thomas Jefferson Charter School who had asked to be included in the discussion. They were: Linda Brown, 2nd grade teacher, Debbie Townsend, 7th & 8th grade teacher, Barbara Katz, 3rd grade teacher, and parents, Fumie Ikeda, Sachiyo Hashimeto, Yasue Miyasaki, Ms. Perez, Nora de Silva, David Remer, Ken Murray, and Char Berry, Principal. Each gave a reason for renewing Thomas Jefferson Charter School’s charter. Julie Heuberger, Attorney, Franczek Sullivan, representing School District #59; Barbara Somogyi, President, Board of Education, District #59; and Laura Walters, Immediate-Past President District #59 School Board, stepped forward to say the Board should not renew the charter for Thomas Jefferson because they did not meet the requirements for special education.

- 44 -

Vote on motion Board Member Resigning

Greg Kazarian said after listening to both sides a decision had been put before the Board, but he was inclined to be receptive to the motion by Ron Gidwitz to provide them a very limited opportunity to swiftly address these deficiencies and meet the requirements of their charter. Dick Sandsmark said he was concerned how this was hurting special education children. He said we were giving them a deadline of August 1, 2003 to have an accountability plan and an all special education requirement plan. He said if this was not submitted by August 1 he would vote for the school charter to be revoked. He said there was no excuse for saying they did not understand the special education requirements. Dean Clark agreed with Dick Sandsmark, as did Ron Gidwitz and Joyce Karon. Dick Sandsmark also commented that the Charter School and District #59 need to begin communicating and working together. General Counsel, Respicio Vazquez said that if the plan is submitted by August 1, 2003, the State Board of Education can still visit the school after August 1 and throughout the year if we feel there are complaints regarding special education that arise, just like in any other school district. Ron Gidwitz would like the record to show that we have an obligation to ensure they comply with the charter, but do not have an obligation to help them implement it. Mr. Vazquez said that was true. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion which passed by the following votes: Ron Gidwitz – yes Judith Gold - yes Joyce Karon – no Greg Kazarian – yes Dick Sandsmark – yes Janet Steiner – no Beverly Turkal – yes Marjorie Branch – yes Dean Clark – yes Marjorie Branch said that she had to leave to catch her plane. Dr. Steiner announced that Marjorie had handed in her letter of resignation and that this was her last day with the Board. She would be moving to Las Vegas, Nevada with her family. Dr. Steiner read a Board Resolution in honor of the service given by Mrs. Branch (see attachment F.)

- 45 -

Rockford Youth Build Charter School Motion

Ron Gidwitz said he would like to thank Marjorie for being a stalwart under his administration as Board Chairman. He said she was knowledgeable, clear-thinking, level headed, and unambiguous. He truly appreciated her support. He said we will be at a disadvantage without her experience, foresight, and determination that No Child be Left Behind. Dr. Steiner said we have a motion on the Rockford Youth Build Charter School. Dick Sandsmark moved that having reviewed the record, the Illinois State Board of Education hereby denies the appeal based on the following evidence: (1) board members were concerned that the charter school proposal had not adequately shown that it was economically sound for the charter school and the school district; (2) board members reviewed additional material such as an independent financial analysis by ISBE staff of costs and budget impact; and (3) board members expressed reservations that the charter school proposal was in the best interests of the students it was designed to serve. The board members accepted the evidence that that Rockford School District was in grave financial condition and, in fact, had recently received an audit stating that the district’s financial condition “raised a substantial doubt about the District’s ability to continue as an ongoing concern.” (R. 474, 477-78.) The board members rejected the evidence respecting the proposed charter school's fiscal soundness and its impact on Rockford School District 205 as inconclusive and inadequate to meet the statutory standard. This was based on the fact that the record includes a number of varying figures in reference to the financial impact of CCS’s proposal on RSD 205. Even despite ISBE staff's additional review and analysis of the financial soundness of the proposal, there remained considerable confusion over which figures apply to which funding level (whether at the minimum 75% level, a variable level ranging from 88% in the first year to 95% in the fifth year, or at the maximum 100% level), and indeed which funding level was being sought by CCS (R. 368; 414 - 416; 422 - 423; 473 - 478; 501 - 502). Finally, based on the uncertain impact of an insufficiently clear charter school proposal upon a school district already in grave financial condition and in turn upon the proposed charter school itself, the board members found

- 46 -

Vote on motion Notices of Objection Motion - Blackburn Vote on motion

that the charter school proposal was not in the best interests of the students it was designed to serve. Therefore, pursuant to 105 ILCS 5/27A-9(e), the Illinois State Board of Education will not exercise its discretion to reverse the local board’s decision. This is a final administrative decision and is subject to judicial review as provided in Section 27A-9(e) of the Charter Schools Law. Mr. Sandsmark believes his motion was a good summary of the fact. Ron Gidwitz seconded the motion. He also said he would enact Mr. Sandsmark’s rendering of actions at the Board meeting. He said the record shows that he did attend the Board meeting and voted in favor of the charter, but he does believe that the reasons expressed by those who were not supportive of the charter were adequately reflected in the record and motion made by Mr. Sandsmark. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion which passed with the following votes: Dick Sandsmark – yes Janet Steiner – yes Beverly Turkal – yes Dean Clark – yes Judith Gold – yes Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian – out of room Ron Gidwitz – yes Dr. Steiner called for motion on Notices of Objection. Superintendent Schiller gave a short overview of the recommendations of the State Teacher Certification Board, and the Board’s options. Dick Sandsmark said each should be voted on separately and he would give a motion on the first one. He said, I move that Illinois State Board of Education accept the accreditation recommendations of the State Teachers Certification Board for Blackburn College. Joyce Karon seconded the motion. Dr. Steiner said she would not be voting on this because of her affiliation with the college. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion which was passed with the following votes:

- 47 -

Motion on University of Chicago Vote on Motion Motion on U of I – Champaign

Dick Sandsmark – yes Beverly Turkal – yes Dean Clark – yes Ron Gidwitz – yes Judith Gold – yes Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian – yes Janet Steiner – abstained Dick Sandsmark moved that the Illinois State Board of Education accept the accreditation recommendations of the State Teachers Certification Board for the University of Chicago. Joyce Karon seconded the motion. Greg Kazarian would like to say for the record that he was troubled with the perspective the university provided, that this is a new program and some of the deficiencies are inherent because it is a new program. But he also said it appeared the Certification Board considered this in their recommendations. He said he was inclined to support the results of the Certification Board, but he hoped, as a result of today, that we would mark the progress as the program moves forward because it will fill a need. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion which was passed with the following votes: Dick Sandsmark – yes Beverly Turkal – yes Dean Clark – yes Ron Gidwitz – yes, he has no conflict but his family has a long history with the University of Chicago. Judith Gold –abstained Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian – yes Janet Steiner – abstained Dick Sandsmark moved that Illinois State Board of Education accept the accreditation recommendations of the State Teachers Certification Board for the University of Illinois-Champaign. Dean Clark seconded the motion. Greg Kazarian said he was confused because if we were only to look under our rules at the information which was available to the review team at the time the recommendation was reached, and we are not allowed to look at the activities subsequent to that report/recommendation in considering whether the standards have been met or unmet, then he was interested in hearing from the Dean on her view whether the review team did not consider materials that had been provided to it, or if it was the position of the university that we should look at the subsequent submissions. Susan Fowler, Dean, came forward to say that they did not believe that all the materials provided at the sight visit review were fully

- 48 -

Addition to motion Vote on motion Motion on Oak Park

considered, and have specifically stated in all their correspondence that they believed they have an assessment plan. She elaborated on the circumstances which led to the recommendation, and said they believed they had met the standards. An extensive discussion followed with Janet Steiner asking if the Dean knew about the six-month report and would be willing to do that. Dean Fowler stated she knew about the six-month report and they felt what they had already provided and constituted this report, but would formally submit it again. Superintendent Schiller said that if the six-month report adequately provided evidence that the weaknesses had been addressed, then they would not be subject to a focus visit. With regard to a six-month report time frame, this would be at the time of the decision of June 17, 2003. Superintendent Schiller said the Board should be on record of the action here and the condition of the six-month report. Dick Sandsmark said he would add to his original motion that the six-month report should be submitted assuming that the report is acceptable, in lieu of the two-year focus visit. Lee Patton gave an explanation to the Board of the options. Respicio Vazquez stated that we would have to wait to receive the six-month report and the rules would provide for those two options explained by Lee Patton. He said you would not have to approve what those options are now. Greg Kazarian said though he did not have a conflict that would keep him from voting, he would like to put on the record his strong affection for the University because it is his alma mater. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion which passed with the following votes: Dick Sandsmark – yes Janet Steiner – yes Beverly Turkal – yes Dean Clark – yes Ron Gidwitz – yes Judith Gold – yes Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian – yes Ron Gidwitz made the motion that the Illinois State Board of Education hereby deny the petition from Oak Park Elementary School District 97 to waive the rules governing reimbursement of transportation costs because it does not address the intent of the rule or mandate in a more effective, efficient, or economical manner. Joyce Karon seconded the motion.

- 49 -

Withdrawal of motion Motion

Ron Gidwitz said he was concerned about the concept. He said the school board has in good conscience tried to reduce its cost of transportation by accepting the lowest bids in both special education transportation and general education transportation, and by a quirk of fate, the same vendor in a competitive environment got both contracts and they are being penalized. He said he would like to give them a pass, but this would weaken the rule for the rest of the state. Therefore, he would support this with great regret. Janet Steiner said she thinks many members of the Board feel this way. Dean Clark wanted to know if in the future the rule could be amended to deal with this particular situation. Superintendent Schiller said it was something we should look at in order to provide an incentive for districts that are looking to cut costs. Greg Kazarian argued that the waiver is appropriate for a waiver because the intent that the rule is there to prevent is not what occurred here. It is an unintended consequence of our rule which seems a perfect place for a waiver. As he mentioned yesterday, we had an argument with the USDE because we think they ought to adapt one of their rules to meet what we think is right for our district, and we are completely within the spirit and sense of the law and we are a little frustrated that not withstanding our diligence on that, that they didn’t hear us. And here we are a day later in the same situation on the opposite foot being as intransigent as they were. His inquiry was why we could not pass the waiver and address the rules to prevent the opening of the door that Mr. Gidwitz is concerned with. Mr. Gidwitz said he would withdraw his motion because he said he was one of the more articulate individuals with respect to the USDE, going so far as to contact members of our congressional delegation to try and push what we were not able to do by way of statutory requirement. He stated Mr. Kazarian was correct that this is not a statutory requirement, but a rule. He said he withdraws his motion. Greg Kazarian then made the motion that we grant the waiver, review our rule, and to move quickly to adjust those rules so that they do not provide for this unintended consequence in the future. Dean Clark seconded the motion. Superintendent Schiller asked if they would be entertaining other petitions from other school boards, and Joyce Karon said that was her question. She said we had no idea what the impact of this motion would be. Respicio said it was time sensitive at the time it was submitted – the 45 days for the Board to consider the waiver. He said the concern he had was the amount of waivers that would come in because the Board is opening up the door to this type of possibility. He said if we were restricting it, the Board would have to draft what language they

- 50 -

Vote on motion Motion to deny waiver Vote on Motion Motion on Rules Motion

are going to restrict it to so it is saying, ‘under these certain conditions we will be granting this waiver based on this criteria’. He stated that the rule would have to be submitted for publication based on public comment (approx. 4 months without controversy). Further discussion followed with David Wood giving his advice and expertise. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion as presented by Greg Kazarian. The motion did not pass with the following votes: Greg Kazarian – yes Dick Sandsmark – no Janet Steiner – no Beverly Turkal - no Dean Clark – yes Ron Gidwitz – no Judith Gold – yes Joyce Karon – no Dr. Steiner called for another motion to deny the waiver but review the rules. Joyce Karon said she moves that the Illinois State Board of Education hereby deny the petition by Oak Park Elementary School District 97 to waive the rules governing reimbursement of transportation costs because it does not address the intent of the rule or mandate in a more effective, efficient or economical manner. Dick Sandsmark seconded the motion. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion which passed with the following votes: Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian – no Dick Sandsmark – yes Janet Steiner – yes Beverly Turkal – yes Dean Clark – no Ron Gidwitz – yes Judith Gold – no Dr. Steiner called for the motion on the Rules. Ron Gidwitz said the State Board of Education hereby adopts the proposed rulemaking for: Certification (23 Illinois Administrative Code 25); and Standards for Certification in Specific Teaching Fields (23 Administrative Code 27). Further, the State Board authorizes the State Superintendent of Education to make such technical or nonsubstantive changes as the State Superintendent may deem necessary in response to suggestions or objections of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules. Joyce Karon seconded the motion. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion which passed with the

- 51 -

Vote on motion Motion Vote on motion Motion ISBE Financial Reports Vote on motion Motion Vote on motion

following votes: Ron Gidwitz - yes Judith Gold – yes Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian – yes Dick Sandsmark – yes Janet Steiner – yes Beverly Turkal – yes Dean Clark – yes Dick Sandsmark read the motion that the State Board of Education hereby adopts the emergency rulemaking for: Certification (23 Illinois Administrative Code 25). Further the Board authorizes the solicitation of public comment on the accompanying proposed amendments, including their publication in the Illinois Register. Ron Gidwitz seconded the motion. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion which passed with the following votes: Dick Sandsmark – yes Janet Steiner – yes Beverly Turkal – yes Dean Clark – yes Ron Gidwitz – yes Judith Gold – yes Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian – yes Dick Sandsmark said he moves that the State Board of Education accept the financial, agency operations, and budget status reports presented during the June 2003 meeting. Ron Gidwitz seconded the motion. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion which passed with the following votes: Dick Sandsmark – yes Janet Steiner - yes Beverly Turkal - yes Dean Clark – yes Ron Gidwitz – yes Judith Gold – yes Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian – yes Ron Gidwitz moved that the Illinois State Board of Education approve the reductions in agency contracts and personnel so as to have a balanced budget in FY04. Further, the Superintendent is authorized to modify this plan dependent on circumstances, including the Governor’s veto, union negotiations, emergencies, etc., presumably in consultation with various Board members. Greg Kazarian seconded the motion. Dr. Steiner said we all approve the motion but we do not approve of the reductions, but there is nothing we can do about it because we do not have the money. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion which passed with the

- 52 -

Motion on Hazel Crest Vote on motion Resolution for Ron Gidwitz Notification by Governor for Chair Adjournment

following votes: Dick Sandsmark – yes Janet Steiner - yes Beverly Turkal - yes Dean Clark – yes Ron Gidwitz – yes Judith Gold – yes Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian – yes Ron Gidwitz moved that the Illinois State Board of Education accepts the Hazel Crest School District 152 ½ School Finance Authority’s amended proposal FY04 budget and reorganization plan as presented. Dr. Steiner called for a vote on the motion which passed with the following votes: Dick Sandsmark – yes Janet Steiner - yes Beverly Turkal - yes Dean Clark – yes Ron Gidwitz – yes Judith Gold – yes Joyce Karon – yes Greg Kazarian – yes Dr. Steiner then read a Board Resolution for Ron Gidwitz in appreciation of his tenure as Chairman of the State Board of Education from 1999 to 2003. He was presented a framed gavel as a momentous token to his Chairmanship. Superintendent Schiller presented Dr. Steiner a framed official notification from the Governor of her appointment as Chair of the State Board of Education. There were not any Committee presentations at this time. Dr. Steiner said the next meeting would be in August, 2003. Dr. Schiller said there may be a need to call an emergency meeting before the end of the fiscal year. Beverly Turkal said she would like to thank Dr. Schiller, Peter Leonis, David Wood and all staff who worked so diligently during the legislative sessions. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. An audio tape of the meeting is available through the State Board Services office in Springfield, (217/782-9560) Respectfully submitted:

- 53 -

_________________________ Richard Sandsmark Secretary __________________________ Dr. Janet Steiner Chair

- 54 -

June 25, 2003 State Board Meeting

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL STATE BOARD OF EDCATION MEETING VIA TELECONFERENCE

100 North First Street, 4th Floor Conference Room Springfield, IL 62777

and James Thompson Center

100 West Randolph, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 62601

June 25, 2003 ________________________________________________________________ Convene The Special meeting of the State Board of Education was called Meeting/ to order by at 8:35 a.m. by Chair, Dr. Janet Steiner. A quorum Roll Call was present. MEMBERS PRESENT: Janet Steiner Ronald Gidwitz Beverly Turkal Joyce Karon Gregory Kazarian MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Sandsmark Dean Clark Judith Gold

The State Board of Education met to discuss a petition for Emergency Financial Assistance and the establishment of a Financial Oversight Panel for Venice Community Unit School District 3. Dr. Steiner read the petition as follows:

Whereas, pursuant to Section 1B-4 of the School Code (105 ILCS Venice 5/1B-4), the State Board, in arriving at their decision on whether or Resolution not to approve the School District’s Petition, considered the following relevant factors:

1. Whether the petition is in the best educational interests of the pupils of the School District;

2. Whether the petition is in the near and long term best financial

interests of the School District;

- 55 -

3. Whether the School District has sufficient pupil enrollment to provide

and maintain recognized schools;

4. Whether the petition is in the best interests of the other schools of the area and the educational welfare of all the pupils therein;

5. Whether the board of education has complied with the requirements of

Section 1A-8 of the School Code regarding districts certified to be in financial difficulty. (105 ILCS 5/1A-8).

Therefore, the State Board of Education, having considered the aforementioned factors in arriving at its decision, certifies that Venice Community Unit School District #3 is in financial difficulty and thereby grants the Petition for Emergency Financial Assistance and the establishment of a Financial Oversight Panel for Venice Community Unit School District #3.

Motion- Ronald Gidwitz moved that the State Board of Education Venice approve the petition for Emergency Financial Assistance and the Resolution establishment of a Financial Oversight Panel for Venice Community Unit

School District 3. The motion was seconded by Joyce Karon.

Vote on All members present voted yes. Motion Adjournment The motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Gregory Kazarian and seconded by Joyce Karon at 8:40 a.m. Respectfully Submitted: _____________________ Richard Sandsmark Secretary _____________________ Dr. Janet Steiner Chair

- 56 -

July 15, 2003 State Board Meeting

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING

VIA TELECONFERENCE 100 North First Street – 4th Floor Board Conference Room

Springfield, Illinois 62777 and

James Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, LaSalle Room

Chicago, IL 62601

July 15, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________ Convene The Special meeting of the State Board of Education was called to order at Meeting/ 8:30 a.m. by the Chair, Dr. Janet Steiner, who asked for the roll to be called. Roll Call A quorum was present. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ronald Gidwitz Beverly Turkal Dean Clark Richard Sandsmark Joyce Karon Gregory Kazarian Janet Steiner MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Gold Chair Steiner indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the FY 2004 Budget and Vetoes. FY04 Dr. Schiller, State Superintendent and David Wood, Director of Operations, Budget proceeded to explain the budget cuts and vetoes and their implications on the and Vetoes agency’s ability to carry out effective services throughout the state. Motion Due to the Governor’s direction to reduce administrative costs, the agency will have to eliminate various services to schools and school districts by further reducing Illinois State Board of Education positions. Ronald Gidwitz made a motion that the Superintendent prepare two plans to

- 57 -

address the funding reductions: one which eliminates all the positions contemplated by the Governor’s vetoes, and a second that retains some of those positions so the agency can meet minimal federal and state requirements for monitoring how school districts use the money granted to them by ISBE. In addition to the two plans in response to the Governor’s amendatory veto message, Gidwitz motioned that there also be a concurrent communication plan to inform the public of ISBE’s position regarding the budget cuts and vetoes. The motion was seconded by Dr. Steiner. Vote on All members present voted yes. Motion Another special meeting will be called before the August Board meeting by teleconference or in person. Adjournment The motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Richard Sandsmark and seconded by Joyce Karon. The meeting adjourned at 10:08 a.m. Respectfully Submitted: _____________________ Richard Sandsmark Secretary ______________________ Dr. Janet Steiner Chair

- 58 -

July 24, 2003 State Board Meeting

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING

VIA TELECONFERENCE 100 North First Street—4th Floor Conference Room

Springfield, Illinois 62777 and

James Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, 14th Floor

Chicago, IL 62601

July 24, 2003

Convene The special meeting of the State Board of Education was called to Meeting/ order at 4:33 p.m. by the Chair, Dr. Janet Steiner, who asked for Roll Call the roll to be called. A quorum was present. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ronald Gidwitz Beverly Turkal Dean Clark Richard Sandsmark Joyce Karon Janet Steiner Greg Kazarian joined the meeting at 4:34 p.m. Judith Gold joined the meeting at 4:54 p.m. Chair Steiner indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Governor’s vetoes of the FY04 ISBE Budget and implications for the agency. FY04 Dr. Schiller proceeded to explain the effects of the budget vetoes Budget on ISBE staffing and services. The services that will be most affected by the cuts include: Certification of teachers, GED testing, Non-public school recognition, Private Business and Vocational Schools (PBVS) oversight, ISBE oversight of numerous state and federal grants, and the Health, Life, Safety Program which reviews school building safety. The Board received the budget document submitted by the Superintendent (see attached). After discussing the effects of the budget vetoes, Board members expressed their concern about the liability and legal issues that would possibly result from an inability to provide mandated services under the law and statutes due to the lack of resources and vital staffing.

- 59 -

Motion Richard Sandsmark made a motion that the Board go into Closed Session to discuss the liability and legal issues involved in the budget cuts that affect staff and the services they provide. The motion was seconded by Janet Steiner. Vote All members present voted yes. The meeting recessed at 6:15 p.m. Closed The Board went into Closed Session at 6:20 p.m. All Board Session members were present as well as Superintendent Schiller and General Counsel Respicio Vazaquez. The Board discussed the legal implications of the vetoes and the concurrent liability to the Board for services that will not be effectively delivered due to staffing cuts. At 6:40 p.m. Wade Nelson was asked to join the meeting. Open At 6:45 p.m. the Board returned to Open Session. A quorum was Session present. All board members were present. Adjournment Ronald Gidwitz made a motion to adjourn the open meeting. Dean Clark seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.

- 60 -

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION August Board Meeting

August 20, 2003

To: Illinois State Board of Education From: Robert E. Schiller, Superintendent Lynne Haeffele Curry, Director Agenda Topic: Approval of Chicago Public School District 299 FY04 Supplemental General State Aid Plan Materials: Executive Summary, CPS SGSA Plan Staff Contact(s): Don Full and Tom Rosene Purpose of Agenda Item Approval of Chicago Public School District 299 FY04 Supplemental General State Aid Plan. Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item Support of programs that will effect improved student achievement for children from low-income households in Chicago public schools. Background Information This program, formerly State Chapter I, is now known as Supplemental General State Aid and is authorized by Section 5/18-8.05(H) of the Illinois School Code. Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications Staff have analyzed the Chicago Public School District 299 SGSA plan for systematic contravention and found no evidence of supplanting. The plan also includes the elements mandated by the Illinois State Board of Education. Pros and Cons of Various Actions Section 5/18-8.05(H) of the Illinois School Code mandates that the State Board of Education approve or reject the Chicago Public School SGSA Plan. Approval of the plan authorizes the expenditure of SGSA funds for approved programs. Rejection of the plan requires the District to give written notice within fifteen days of intent to modify

- 61 -

the plan and to submit a modified plan within thirty days after the date of notification of intent to modify. Superintendent’s Recommendation Based on staff analysis of the plan and the inclusion of elements required by the Illinois State Board of Education, it is recommended that the Chicago Public School District FY04 SGSA plan be approved. Next Steps State Board of Education staff will conduct onsite compliance monitoring visits to Chicago public schools to assure that Supplemental General State Aid funds have been distributed by the Chicago Public School District 299 according to statute and that these funds are being expended for approved programs.

- 62 -

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING

August 20, 2003 TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Robert E. Schiller, Superintendent Lynne Haeffele Curry, Director David Wood, Director Agenda Topic: Approval of 2003-2004 fees for GED testing Staff Contact(s): David McDermott Evelyn Deimel Purpose of Agenda Item To consider the recommendation of ISBE staff to approve a GED fee increase to sustain the program in light of the Governor’s veto of the ISBE Regional Services line which funded the program. Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item The Board will increase the GED application fee from $35.00 to $80.00 effective January 1, 2004, and approve an ROE subsidy for statewide activities, including one ISBE staff to coordinate the program. Background Information The School Code (105 ILC 5/3-15.12) makes the local administration of the GED Testing Program a responsibility of the ROE and provides for ISBE to establish fees and supervise all testing centers in Illinois. ISBE is the single state contact with American Council on Education (ACE) and provides various coordinating, scoring, data management and other statewide activities as required by federal guidelines. The Regional Offices of Education purchase exam batteries from the American Council on Education (ACE) and administer GED tests at the local level. This includes scheduling, hiring an examiner, providing clerical support and test security, storing and issuing transcript information and certificates, etc. Application ($35.00), retest ($5.00 - $30.00), duplicate certificate ($10.00), and transcript fees ($2.00) received from GED candidates and a $210,000 state subsidy generally pay for the program and excess costs are picked up by the Regional Offices of Education.

- 63 -

ISBE, as the Chicago ROE, contracts with the Sangamon County ROE to perform these functions in Chicago where nearly 11,000 of the 24,000 state GED tests are given. Recently, ISBE has received approximately $400,000 GRF and $400,000 in fees to fund tests in Chicago and to perform various statewide functions. The Governor’s vetoes eliminated all state GED funding from the FY04 state budget including both the $210 thousand statewide subsidy and the $400,000 subsidy for Chicago and statewide activities. While the State Board recently increased the application fee from $30.00 to $35.00 effective January 1, 2003, it is likely that the only option to offset the loss of these state subsidies is to increase fees again. The General Assembly instituted the $210,000 contribution in 1997 to offset the cost of a new per person fee for first-time test takers. The appropriation was sufficient until this year to also reduce the general cost of the test battery by $25.00 (from $70.00 to $45.00). As a consequence of the loss of the $210,000, the cost to each ROE for each test taker will immediately increase by $8.50 and the cost for each test will increase by approximately $6.50. Thus, the fee for initial test takers will have to increase by approximately $15.00 (from $35.00 to $50.00) just to maintain the status quo. Moreover, costs for examiner/proctor fees, facility expenses, postage, support staff, and electronic scoring equipment continue to rise and currently, nearly 2/3 of all ROE already lose money providing this service and the other 1/3 barely break even. To provide a more appropriate financial situation for the ROE the fee would have to increase by approximately another $10.00 (total increase of $25.00 to $60.00). As a consequence of the loss of the $400,000 for Chicago and statewide activities, it is appropriate for all ROE to contribute toward the statewide function rather than assume that test takers in Chicago will fund this. To provide ROE with resources to make this contribution will require another $10.00 increase (total increase of $35.00 to $70.00). While an increase of $35.00 (from $35.00 to $70.00) may work for most ROE for a year or two, it is insufficient to fund the system administered by ISBE in Chicago and offset the entire $400,000 state subsidy. Unlike most other ROEs who can spread administration of the program across all of their staff, the magnitude of the program in Chicago requires a separate office and staff dedicated to the function. To provide sufficient resources to fund the program throughout the state for at least several years, including minimal statewide activities, staff recommend increasing the fees effective January 1, 2004, as follows: initial applicant fee by $45.00 (from $35.00 to a $80.00); retest fees from $10.00 to $20.00 for writing, and from $5.00 to $10.00 for each of the other four disciplines (all five disciplines from $30.00 to $60.00); duplicate certificate fees from $10.00 to $20.00; and transcription fees from $2.00 to $4.00.

- 64 -

Despite these increases, Illinois fees will remain near those of surrounding states and the national average and the program will continue to be a low cost high school completion program that provides tremendous value for individuals who seek to earn an Illinois High School Equivalency Certificate. Superintendent’s Recommendation The Superintendent recommends the Board increase the application fees as set forth below and approves an ROE contribution to spread the cost of the statewide activities across all test takers and not just those in Chicago. Recommendation 1: To offset the elimination of the $210,000 state subsidy, increase

the fee by $15.00. Recommendation 2: To offset the current financial program loss, increase the fee by

another $10.00. Recommendation 3: To offset the loss of the $400,000 state subsidy and provide the

ROE with resources to contribute toward the statewide function, increase the fee by another $10.00.

Recommendation 4: To offset the loss of the $400,000 state subsidy and provide

ISBE with resources to maintain the services to Chicago, increase the fee by another $10.00.

Recommendation 5: Concomitant with the increases above for the fee for initial test

takers, double all other test fees associated with the program. Next Steps Extend the Chicago contract to cover the second half of the fiscal year, work with the ROE to assure an adequate contribution to support state wide activities, and monitor the fiscal structure of the Illinois GED Testing Program over time to ensure that revenue and expenditures are balanced.

- 65 -


August 20, 2003 TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Robert E. Schiller, Superintendent Lee Patton, Interim Director Agenda Topic: Approval of Illinois State Teacher Certification Board Accreditation Recommendations to the State Board of Education Materials: Notifications of Accreditation Recommendation for:

Governors State University Judson College Principia College University of Illinois at Springfield VanderCook College of Music MacMurray College Millikin University North Park University Staff Contact(s): Lee Patton Nancy Long Purpose of Agenda Item

• To review the accreditation recommendations issued by the State Teacher Certification Board for the eight colleges and universities listed above.

Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item

• To issue final accreditation decisions for the affected colleges and universities; and

• To authorize the State Superintendent to inform the institutions of the State Board decisions.

Background Information On June 12, 2003, the Audit Committees of the State Teacher Certification Board (STCB) reviewed the team reports and supplementary materials provided by the six (6) institutions that had received an accreditation visit during the previous fall. In addition,

- 66 -

the Audit Committees reviewed the 18-month reports submitted by three (3) institutions as required following accreditation visits that occurred spring 2001. The Certification Board, in plenary session on June 13, reviewed the findings of the Audit Committees and issued accreditation recommendations to the State Board of Education. Following the action by the STCB, the Superintendent sent a letter to each institution informing the leadership of the recommendations and advising the institutions that a final accreditation would be issued by the State Board of Education. The Certification Board recommended that six institutions be granted Continuing Accreditation and three institutions be assigned Accreditation with Conditions. The institutions recommended for Continuing Accreditation are:

• Governors State University • MacMurray College • Millikin University • North Park University • Principia College • VanderCook College of Music

Accreditation with Conditions was recommended for:

• Judson College • Rockford College • University of Illinois at Springfield

The Illinois Administrative Code Section 25.160 allows institutions to file a “notice of objection” if the Certification Board has recommended anything other than unconditional accreditation of the unit. The affected institutions must file the notice with the Department of Certification and Professional Development within 30 days of receipt of the Superintendent’s letter. Of the three institutions receiving conditional accreditation, two – Judson College and University of Illinois at Springfield – have notified the department in writing that they will not file a “notice of objection.” The recommendations of the Certification Board for these two institutions are being forwarded for State Board action. At the time this agenda item was prepared, the thirty-day period had not expired and the third institution, Rockford College, had not officially filed a “notice of objection” nor had they sent a written statement accepting the recommendations. Therefore, recommendations regarding the accreditation status of Rockford College will be considered at a future State Board meeting. The Certification Board recommendations to be considered at the August meeting of the State Board are as follows:

• All of the institutions recommended for Continuing Accreditation;

- 67 -

• Judson College – Continuing Accreditation with Conditions (required 6-month report); and

• University of Illinois at Springfield - Continuing Accreditation with Conditions (required 6-month report)

Certification Board Analysis and Recommendations During October and November 2002, six accreditation visits were conducted. A joint NCATE/State team conducted a visitation to Governors State University and state-only teams visited the campuses of Principia College, Judson College, Rockford College, VanderCook College of Music, and the University of Illinois at Springfield. The teams were composed of public school personnel and higher education faculty and administrators. Over the four and one-half days of the review, team members examined documents and exhibits prepared by the institution and interviewed faculty, administrators, graduates, teacher education candidates, and public school practitioners. The team carefully studied the Conceptual Framework of the educational unit, reviewed candidate performance data (e.g., state testing scores, assessment results, etc.) and analyzed various systems and procedures introduced by each institution to assure compliance with each of the six accreditation standards. Governors State University (GSU) The eleven-member joint team recommended that GSU be found in compliance with all six standards and determined that no weakness statements were warranted. Following its review of the materials provided by the University and the team, the Certification Board concurred with the team. Attachment 1 describes the Certification Board findings and recommendations for Governors State. In accordance with Illinois Administrative Code Section 25.125, if all standards are “met”, the unit must be assigned “continuing accreditation”. GSU is required to submit an annual report detailing changes in any program areas and/or revisions to unit operations. Governors State’s next review will be conducted according to the schedule approved by the State Board, in consultation with the State Teacher Certification Board. Judson College The accreditation review team recommended that Judson College be found in compliance with all standards, except Standard 6, Unit Governance and Resources, which was “not met”. Standard 4, Diversity, was “met with weaknesses”. The Certification Board considered the team report and other pertinent documentation and concurred with weakness statements developed by the team. Attachment 2 describes the Certification Board findings and recommendations for Judson College.

- 68 -

In accordance with Illinois Administrative Code Section 25.125, if just one standard is “not met,” the Certification Board must recommend that the State Board assign “accreditation with conditions.” Although this State Board decision authorizes the institution to conduct its approved programs and to recommend its candidates for certification by entitlement, “accreditation with conditions” requires the affected institution to provide written notification of its accreditation status to the candidates enrolled in preparation programs. The Certification Board also recommended that the State Board require the submission of a six-month report to determine whether the unmet standard and additional areas of weaknesses cited by the team have been corrected. The Certification Board will examine the report and recommend to the State Board that it continue the unit’s accreditation or require a focused visit to occur within one year of this decision. If “continued accreditation” is granted, the institution’s next accreditation review will occur according to the schedule approved by the State Board of Education, in consultation with the State Certification Board. Principia College The site visitation team recommended that Principia be found in compliance with all six standards and determined that only two weakness statements were warranted. Following its review of the materials provided by the College and the team, the Certification Board recommended that the two weakness statements be removed. Attachment 3 describes the Certification Board findings and recommendations for Principia. In accordance with Illinois Administrative Code Section 25.125, if all standards are “met”, the unit must be assigned “continuing accreditation”. Principia is required to submit an annual report detailing changes in any program areas and/or revisions to unit operations. University of Illinois at Springfield (UI-S) The team report recommended that UI-S be found in compliance with all standards, except Standard 2, Assessment System and Unit Evaluation, which was “not met”. Standards 1, 3, and 5 were “met with weaknesses;” and Standards 4 and 6 were “met” with no weaknesses. The Certification Board considered the team report and other pertinent documentation and concurred with weakness statements developed by the team. Attachment 4 describes the Certification Board findings and recommendations for University of Illinois at Springfield.

- 69 -

As with Judson College, when one standard is “not met,” the Certification Board is required to recommend that the State Board assign “accreditation with conditions.” This accreditation status requires the affected institution to provide written notification of its accreditation status to the candidates enrolled in preparation programs. The Certification Board also recommended that the State Board require the submission of a six-month report to determine whether the unmet standard and additional areas of weaknesses cited by the team have been corrected. The Certification Board will examine the report and recommend to the State Board that it continue the unit’s accreditation or require a focused visit to occur within one year of this decision. If “continued accreditation” is granted, the institution’s next accreditation review will occur according to the schedule approved by the State Board of Education, in consultation with the State Certification Board. VanderCook College of Music Although weaknesses were identified in Standards 3, 4, and 5, the site visitation team recommended that VanderCook be found in compliance with all six standards. Following its review of the materials provided by the College and the team, the Certification Board concurred with weakness statements developed by the team and recommended that VanderCook be granted “continuing accreditation.” Attachment 5 describes the Certification Board findings and recommendations for VanderCook College of Music. In accordance with Illinois Administrative Code Section 25.125, if all standards are “met”, the unit must be assigned “continuing accreditation”. VanderCook is required to submit an annual report detailing changes in any program areas and/or revisions to unit operations. MacMurray College, Millikin University and North Park University Three institutions were required to submit 18-month reports in response to accreditation visits that occurred in spring 2001. The process was based on the 1995-97NCATE Standards and the subsequent findings by the Certification Board related to this earlier set of standards. The results of the team visits were presented to the Certification Board at its December 2001, meeting. Following a period of eighteen months during which the identified areas of weakness were addressed, the institutions submitted documentation of their progress toward meeting all standards. On June 12, 2003, the Audit Committees examined the reports, studied document provided by the institutions, and questioned representatives of each of the three institutions. Based upon the evidence available to it, the Certification Board determined that sufficient progress had been made to grant each institution “continuing accreditation.” (See Attachments 7, 8, and 9)

- 70 -

Policy, Budget, and Legislative Implications The State Board process for the review of continuing accreditation recommendations based on the new ISBE/NCATE 2000 Standards is a significant step forward in the implementation of the State Board policy for accountability in teacher preparation. Although there are no policy, budget or legislative implications with respect to these decisions, the findings of the visitation teams and the Certification Board continue provide insight into the challenges that institutions (and the State of Illinois) face in the implementation of the new Standards. Each institution’s circumstances are unique and the findings suggest that improvements in the areas of performance assessment of teacher candidates and the development of the unit assessment system, the standards related to technology, and the standards related to diversity are critical. Identification of these areas provide preliminary guidance for the kind of technical assistance needed for these and other institutions and staff will be exploring options for appropriate action. Communication The Superintendent will communicate by letter the accreditation status of the educational unit of each institution and, when appropriate, advise them they are required to notify all current and prospective candidates of their status. The Department of Certification and Professional Development will post the State Board’s accreditation decisions on its website to provide public notice of the status of each educational unit. Pros and Cons of Various Actions Acceptance of the Certification Board’s recommendations will establish the accreditation status for the eight institutions and allow them to proceed in the review cycle. The institutions will continue to design and implement appropriate modifications to address identified weaknesses. In accordance with the Illinois Administrative Code Section 25.125, the required six-month reports for Judson and UI-S will be submitted and reviewed in the fall. Because this will coincide with the submission of the annual report, the six-month report will be accepted instead of an annual report. Continuous monitoring of the each institution’s progress will be performed each year through review of its Annual Report and other appropriate action. The next accreditation reviews will occur as determined by the schedule approved by the State Board, in consultant with the Certification Board. Superintendent’s Recommendation The State Board should take the following action:

• Assign “Continuing Accreditation” to: o Governors State University o MacMurray College

- 71 -

o Millikin University o North Park University o Principia College o VanderCook College of Music

• Assign “Continuing Accreditation with Conditions” with a required six-month

report to: o Judson College o University of Illinois at Springfield

• Authorize the Superintendent to inform the institutions of the State Board’s

decisions.

Next Steps Staff will contact representatives of each institution to explain the State Board’s decision and to provide technical assistance in resolving the cited weaknesses. Official correspondence from the State Superintendent will confirm the decision of the State Board and will serve as written documentation of the Board’s formal action.

- 72 -

Attachment 1

Illinois State Teacher Certification Board

NOTIFICATION OF ACCREDITATION RECOMMENDATION to the


Governors State University University Park, IL

Continuing Accreditation Review – Initial and Advanced Level

October 5-9, 2002

The State Superintendent of Education notifies the institution within 30 days after receipt of the State Teacher Certification Board’s accreditation recommendation. The institution has the option of submitting a notice of objection to the Certification Board’s recommendation within the guidelines defined in the Illinois Administrative Code, Section 25.160(b).

STATE TEACHER CERTIFICATION BOARD ACCREDITATION RECOMMENDATION June 13, 2003

CONTINUING ACCREDITATION {Section 25.125 (j)(1)}

STANDARD 1 – Candidate Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions

Met (Initial) Met (Advanced)

STANDARD 2 – Assessment System and Unit Evaluation


STANDARD 3 – Field Experiences and Clinical Practice


STANDARD 4 – Diversity


- 73 -

STANDARD 5 – Faculty Qualifications, Performance and Development


STANDARD 6 – Unit Governance and Resources


- 74 -

Attachment 2




Judson College Elgin, IL

Continuing Accreditation Review – Initial Level

October 5-9, 2002



Continuing Accreditation {Section 25.125 (j)(2)(A)} and requires the submission of a written report to State Board staff in six months on the enumerated weaknesses. STANDARD 1 – Candidate Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions

Met STANDARD 2 – Assessment System and Unit Evaluation

Met STANDARD 3 – Field Experiences and Clinical Practice

Met STANDARD 4 – Diversity

Met with Weakness

- 75 -

• Candidates have limited opportunities to interact with racially and ethnically diverse faculty within the unit.

• There was no evidence that candidates interact in school settings with

school faculty from diverse racial and ethnic groups.

• There is no evidence that minority candidates are retained and graduate

from the teacher preparation program. STANDARD 5 – Faculty Qualifications, Performance and Development

Met STANDARD 6 – Unit Governance and Resources

Not Met

• The unit does not have full-time faculty for candidates in the Early Childhood Education program. Excessive reliance on adjunct faculty in this program leads to lack of program coherence and integrity.

• Some faculty have teaching loads way beyond the institutionally stipulated

norms.

• The unit does not have well maintained facilities to support candidate progress to meet standards.

• The unit does not provide office space or networked personal computers

for the adjunct faculty to facilitate interaction with candidates.

- 76 -

Attachment 3




Principia College Elsah, IL


October 26-30, 2002 The State Superintendent of Education notifies the institution within 30 days after receipt of the State Teacher Certification Board’s accreditation recommendation. The institution has the option of submitting a notice of objection to the Certification Board’s recommendation within the guidelines defined in the Illinois Administrative Code, Section 25.160(b). STATE TEACHER CERTIFICATION BOARD ACCREDITATION RECOMMENDATION

June 13, 2003

CONTINUING ACCREDITATION {Section 25.125 (j)(1)} STANDARD 1 – Candidate Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions



Met STANDARD 4 - Diversity

Met STANDARD 5 – Faculty Qualifications, Performance and Development

Met STANDARD 6 – Unit Governance and Resources

Met

- 77 -

Attachment 4




University of Illinois at Springfield Springfield, IL

Continuing Accreditation Review – Initial and Advanced Level

October 26-30, 2002



Continuing Accreditation {Section 25.125 (j)(2)(A)} and requires the submission of a written report to State Board staff in six months on the enumerated weaknesses. STANDARD 1 – Candidate Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions

Met with Weakness

• The unit has not identified and agreed upon a core set of dispositions that align to the Conceptual Framework.


Not Met

• The unit’s assessment plan is not fully developed.

• The unit has not defined multiple performance assessments that will be used at each transition point.

- 78 -

• The unit has not taken effective steps to establish fairness, accuracy, and consistency in its assessment procedures.

• The unit has not developed a cohesive, collaborative, and comprehensive

unit assessment data collection, analysis, and evaluation system.

• The unit has not maintained a record of formal complaints nor does it document resolutions.


Met with Weaknesses

• The unit has not established criteria for initial level university clinical faculty. (Initial Level)

• Some university clinical faculty have not demonstrated the knowledge,

skills, and professional dispositions needed to provide ongoing support for student teachers. (Initial Level)

Met (Advanced Level)

STANDARD 4 - Diversity


Met with Weakness

• At the initial level, university clinical faculty do not have contemporary professional experiences in school settings, and in several cases, at the level they supervise. (Initial Level)

Met (Advanced Level)


Met

- 79 -

Attachment 5




VanderCook College of Music Chicago, IL


November 16-20, 2002







Met with Weakness

• The unit’s expectations for pre-clinical experiences are not well established, coordinated, or sequential throughout the program.


Met with Weakness

- 80 -

• The unit cannot assure that all candidates have experiences working with

all types of diverse populations. STANDARD 5 – Faculty Qualifications, Performance and Development

Met with Weaknesses

• There is no formal system in place to evaluate unit faculty teaching, research, and service.

• There is no evidence that the faculty member assigned to teach the

required special education course has an earned doctorate or exceptional expertise in special education.


Met

- 81 -

Attachment 6


NOTIFICATION OF ACCREDITATION RECOMMENDATION

to the


MACMURRAY COLLEGE Jacksonville, IL


April 2001





• The conceptual framework has not been fully developed and therefore, has not been shared among the professional educational faculty, candidates, or other members of the college professional or educational communities. (Former Standard I.A.)

• Performance expectations are not fully aligned with the conceptual framework

(i.e., the four characteristics of teacher candidates). (Revised former Standard I.A.)

• Not all aspects of unit programs have been organized in well-planned sequences.

(Revised former Standard 1.D.)


- 82 -

• The unit has no plan for regular or systematic evaluation of the conceptual framework. (Former Standard I.A.)


• Clinical experiences are not consistent with the conceptual framework, not well-planned, and not sequenced. (Former Standard I.H.)


Met with Weaknesses

• The unit has a limited support system targeted specifically at retaining minority candidates through program completion. (Revised former Standard II.B.)

• There is limited evidence of recruitment toward a diverse higher education

faculty. (Revised former Standard III.B.)

• Diversity in the unit faculty does not reflect the diversity of the student population. (Former Standard III.B.)

STANDARD 5 – Faculty Qualifications, Performance and Development

Met with Weaknesses • Teaching in the unit is not consistent with the conceptual framework. (Former

Standard I.G.)

• Scholarly activity of the unit faculty is limited. (Former Standard III.A.)

• Engagement of the unit faculty in the professional community's professional development activities is limited. (Former Standard III.A.)


Met with Weaknesses • The unit has not developed or implemented a long-range plan to ensure

ongoing vitality. (Former Standard IV.A)

• Curricular materials in the unit educational learning center are limited. (Revised former Standard IV.B.)

- 83 -

Attachment 7




Millikin University Decatur, IL


April 2001






Met with Weaknesses • A system for evaluating the conceptual framework has not been clearly

articulated. (Revised former Standard I.A.) STANDARD 3 – Field Experiences and Clinical Practice


- 84 -


Met with Weakness • The workloads of faculty in the unit do not allow effective involvement in

teaching, scholarship, and service. (Former Standard III.C.) • STANDARD 6 – Unit Governance and Resources

Met with Weakness • With the exception of the children’s literature collection, curriculum materials

for candidate use are limited. (Revised former Standard IV.B.)

- 85 -

Attachment 8




NORTH PARK UNIVERSITY Chicago, IL


April 2001









Met with Weakness

- 86 -

• There is insufficient evidence of faculty scholarship. (Revised former Standard III.C.)

• There are not sufficient numbers of full-time faculty to support each

professional preparation program.


Met with Weakness

• The unit’s budget does not provide adequate support for the growth in programs in professional education. (Revised former Standard IV.C.)

- 87 -


August 20, 2003 TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Robert E. Schiller, Superintendent Lee Patton, Interim Director Agenda Topic: Approval of Cancellation of the Contract for Evaluation of the Certificate Renewal System Materials: None Staff Contact(s): Tom Hannon Purpose of Agenda Item

• To consider the proposed cancellation of the contract for evaluation of the Teacher Certificate Renewal System.


• State Board action on the proposal. Background Information Section 21-14(l) of the School Code requires that the State Board of Education and the State Teacher Certification Board “shall jointly contract with an independent party to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the certificate renewal system pursuant to this Section.” The first report is to be presented to the General Assembly on January 1, 2005 and every third year thereafter. Pursuant to a Request for Proposals, the State Board and the Certification Board contracted with MGT of America. The contract provisions called for a three-year evaluation with annual payments as follows: FY02 - $109,300 FY03 - $109,600 FY04 - $147,260 The company has submitted an annual report on its findings for FY02 and FY03; the latter report will be discussed with the Certification Board and the State Board during their September meetings.

- 88 -

This contract has been funded by the Teacher Certification Revolving Fund. The Governor’s recent budget actions reduced the appropriation for Revolving Fund line item from $1.5 M to $375,000. This amount is not sufficient to meet all of the obligations for staff and activities that were funded in previous years. Therefore, State Board staff have concluded that the third year of the evaluation of the teacher certificate renewal program cannot be conducted and the contract must be cancelled. Analysis and Implications Discussion and Policy Implications The MGT of America has fulfilled its obligations with skill and professionalism, providing important insights for making improvements to the teacher certification program in the future. Cancellation of the contract is being recommended only because the Governor’s budget reductions have eliminated the funds that have supported it. Although it would be unfortunate if the State of Illinois is not able to continue the contract for the third and final evaluation year, the information gathered thus far has resulted in the identification of several serious problems and established a foundation for considering immediate changes to the program. In other words, the third year report is not necessary to moving forward with improvements to the system. As indicated above, the second year report will be discussed with the Certification Board and the State Board in September. At that time, the two Boards can determine whether to submit the second year report at this time, wait until January 2005, or take other action to meet its statutory obligation. Budget Implications The contract with MGT of America includes a standard 30-day cancellation clause. If the Certification Board and the State Board of Education concur with the staff recommendation that the contract be cancelled, this clause will be invoked immediately. Costs will continue to accrue for the current fiscal year until the contract is formally cancelled. Legislative Action Because this evaluation is a statutory mandate, it will be necessary to notify the General Assembly and the Governor that the lack of funding makes it impossible to continue the evaluation contract for the third year. They should also be informed that the reports required for the future are also in jeopardy. It may be necessary to seek a change in the legislation. Communication

- 89 -

If the State Board authorizes cancellation of the contract, staff will notify affected parties, including the contractor, the legislature, the teacher associations and unions, and others as appropriate. Pros and Cons of Various Actions There is no money available to pay for the third year of this contract, so the State Board must cancel it to avoid liability it cannot meet. Superintendent’s Recommendation The State Teacher Certification Board voted to recommend cancellation of this contract, with the request that it be reinstated if money becomes available. The State Board of Education should approve the actions recommended by the Certification Board and direct staff to inform the General Assembly and the Governor regarding this situation and its implications. Next Steps Staff will implement the Board’s decision and make the appropriate notifications. Staff will also develop for future consideration a proposal to modify the mandate for conducting such a study.

- 90 -


August 20, 2003 TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Robert E. Schiller, Superintendent Lee Patton, Interim Director Agenda Topic: Approval of Teacher Education Accreditation Cycle Materials: Illinois Institutional Accreditation Review Cycle Timeline Illinois Review Schedule Illinois Institutional Review Accreditation Decisions

Staff Contact(s): Nancy Long Purpose of Agenda Item

• Presentation of a proposal to extend the cycle for accreditation of institutions that provide professional preparation for educators from five to seven years.


• State Board action on the proposal.

Background Information Accreditation visits by the State Board of Education and the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) have been scheduled on a five-year cycle, a pattern that has been followed since the mid-1980s. Most other national accrediting organizations operate on a seven-, eight-, or ten-year cycle, and since 2002, changes in the length of the NCATE review cycle have been discussed in several of its committee meetings. NCATE also surveyed its state partners and determined that many were experiencing problems with the relatively short cycle. Following the NCATE committee/board meetings in October 2003, is Process and Evaluation Committee recommended to the Unit Accreditation Board (UAB) that the review cycles for continuing accreditation be extended from five years to seven years and a five-year cycle for initially accredited institutions be retained, and the State Partnership Board adopted a resolution in support of the seven-year cycle.

- 91 -

The UAB voted to recommend to the Executive Board an extension of the accreditation cycle from five to seven years, provided that the partner state is in agreement. In May 2003, the Executive Board accepted the UAB’s recommendation. This action is retroactive to institutions that have been reviewed under the NCATE 2000 Standards. The State Teacher Certification Board and the State Board of Education have consistently agreed to follow as closely as possible the accreditation process used by NCATE. This was intended to assure that Illinois institutions that are NCATE-accredited are not subject to duplicate reviews and conflicting requirements. Now that NCATE review visits will be extended to a seven-year cycle, it is necessary to review the State Board policy. Analysis and Implications Discussion and Policy Implications Even if NCATE had not changed its cycle it would have been important for Illinois to consider the appropriateness of its current cycle of visits. Staff have found that the complete cycle, which now includes an opportunity for an institution to file a notice of objection and to submit additional materials before the final decision is made, can mean that an institution might conclude various aspects of its accreditation review just a few months before the next cycle begins. The attached chart has been developed to show the current procedures and how, under certain circumstances, they can extend throughout most of a five-year cycle. This continuous focus on planning, preparing for, and responding to an external review can distract from the institutions’ focus on providing high-quality preparation programs and making identified improvements. The proposed move from a five- to a seven-year cycle would provide institutions additional time to collect and analyze data related to their candidates and the quality of their programs in a continuous assessment system. This is of particular importance because the NCATE 2000 Standards require dramatic changes and the creation of a complex unit assessment system incorporating content-area standards and performance-based assessments. A seven-year cycle would not mean less accountability nor less oversight by the State. All institutions will continue to receive their first accreditation review under the NCATE 2000 rules within five years of the previous visit. Subsequent reviews would occur on a seven-year cycle except when a program or the institution is not given continuing approval. Programs within a unit that do not meet State standards will be provisionally approved. These programs are required to submit additional information within 18 months in order to continue operation. If problems are not satisfactorily addressed, the program’s approval is revoked.

- 92 -

Institutions that are not meeting one or more standards at the time of an on-site visit will receive accreditation with conditions and must submit additional documentation within six months to remove the condition or be subject to a focused visit within two years. Institutions that have more pervasive problems are accredited with probation and are required to host an on-site visit within two years to maintain their accreditation. In all cases, annual reports describing how the unit is addressing any weaknesses identified during the previous review and describing any changes in unit operations or individual programs are required. In addition, each institution must submit an annual report to meet the requirements of Title II of the Higher Education Act. The State Board’s Certification and Professional Development Department recently made changes to its planned schedule of visits for the next several years. These changes were required for several reasons, including limited staff, limited numbers of trained chairs and limited funding for the visits. Staff had been scheduled to conduct 18 visits during FY 04, and that was simply not feasible. Moreover, the original schedule resulted in a large number of visits scheduled within the same year, while there were no regular visits during a subsequent two-year period. The attached revised schedule was developed to address these problems by spreading the visits more evenly over the years. Visits to NCATE institutions that were scheduled for this academic year have been retained so that there is no disruption in our collaborative review of these schools. The schedule also includes two focused visits this year, as required by previous accreditation decisions. All other visits, including future NCATE institution reviews and other focused visits, have been moved to the following years. This modification has been discussed with and approved by NCATE. These changes were made so that if the Certification Board and the State Board approve the proposed seven-year cycle, the agency would be positioned to move smoothly into that new cycle. Budget Implications The institutional review process involves substantial cost for the State Board and for the institutions being reviewed. These costs include staff and team member costs, as well as costs associated with the preparation of artifacts, displays, etc. A longer review cycle would conserve resources, an important goal in light of the budget issues for the State Board and Illinois’ higher education institutions. For the State Board, review teams would be sent on-site less frequently, requiring fewer teams and fewer staff resources. The longer cycle would also give staff time to focus on those institutions or programs that are not meeting standards. For institutions, the proposal would mean that expenses associated with their preparation of the review would occur each seven years instead of every five.

- 93 -

Legislative Action No legislative or regulatory action would be required by the proposed change. Recent changes to State Board rules removed reference to “fifth-year reviews,” thereby allowing the State Board to determine, by policy, the period of time for such reviews. The timeframe for institutional responses when programs or institutions are not full approved are in rules but they would not be impacted by the proposed change. Communication If the State Board approves the proposed change in the institutional accreditation cycle, the institutions must be notified and various documents must be modified to reflect the new policy. The State Board must also formally notify NCATE of its decision and modify the protocol submitted last year. Pros and Cons of Various Actions Several advantages of the proposed action are described above. In addition, if the Board moves to the proposed cycle, it will remain in alignment with NCATE procedures and avoid the potential problem of asynchronous reviews. Superintendent’s Recommendation The State Teacher Certification Board has endorsed the proposed change to a seven-year accreditation cycle. The State Board of Education should approve the proposed policy change as follows:

• Initial accreditation under NCATE 2000 standards will occur within five years of the previous accreditation decision.

• All subsequent accreditations will be conducted on a seven year cycle, except for institutions that are not given continuing approval.

• This change to a seven-year cycle will be retroactive to all institutions that have undergone a review based on NCATE 2000 Standards.

• Institutions that do not receive full approval will be subject to the requirements set forth in rules and as determined appropriate for each institution or program.

Next Steps The State Board will notify NCATE and Illinois higher education institutions regarding its decision.

- 94 -

Illinois Institutional Accreditation Review Cycle Timeline June 2003

Time of

Implementation EXAMPLE

Spring 2004 Review Institution’s Responsibility

ISBE Responsibility

2 years prior to Review February 2002 Set Date for Review Conduct Training for institutions

1 year prior to Review February 2003 Submit Conceptual Framework Panel Review conceptual framework

11 months prior to Review

March 2003 Send findings of CF panel review to institution

March 2003 Program Reviews: ISBE and NCATE SPAs

Panel review of programs

9 months prior to review

June 2003 Program panel initial critiques returned to institutions


September 2003 Program rejoinders to ISBE and NCATE SPAs


January 2004 Institutional Report due Final Program Critiques forwarded to institutions

45 days prior to review January/February 2004 On-campus previsit On-campus previsit March 2004 REVIEW REVIEW Within 30 days after review

March/April 2004 Review draft team report for factual errors and return to ISBE

Forward draft of team report to institution for factual errors

30 days after review April 2004 Final Team Report sent to institution60 days after review May 2004 Letter of agreement or Rejoinder

sent to ISBE

November/May November 2004 Review materials forwarded to STCB

December/June December 2004 STCB Accreditation Recommendation determined

30 days following STCB recommendation

January 2005 Superintendent letter - STCB Accreditation Recommendation

30 days following receipt of letter

February 2005 Can file “Notice of Objection or accept recommendations by not responding

30 days after filing Notice of Objection

March 2005 Submit documentation to support Notice of Objection

“next available meeting”

June 2005 State Board reviews STCB recommendations and materials – Accreditation Decision

30 days after SBE meeting

July 2005 Notify institution of Accreditation Decision

Annual Report October 2005 Annual Report due Six-Month Report – if required

January 2006 Six-Month Report

November/May May 2006 Six-Month Report forwarded to STCB

December/June June 2006 STCB reviews Six-Month Report and make Accreditation Recommendation


July 2006 Superintendent letter - STCB Accreditation Recommendation


August 2006 Can file “Notice of Objection or accept recommendations by not responding


September 2006 Submit documentation to support Notice of Objection

Annual Report October 2006 Annual Report due November/May November 2006 Report and materials forwarded to

State Board

- 95 -

Time of Implementation

EXAMPLE Spring 2004 Review

Institution’s Responsibility

ISBE Responsibility

December/June December 2006 State Board makes Accreditation Decision


January 2007 Notify institution of Accreditation Decision

PREPARE FOR NEXT REVIEW

March 2007 Set date for next review

Annual Report October 2007 Annual Report due If Focused Visit Required – One year following SBE decision

January 2008 Focused Visit Focused Visit

Within 30 days after review

January/February 2008 Review draft team report for factual errors and return to ISBE

Forward draft of team report to institution for factual errors

30 days after review February 2008 Final Team Report sent to institution60 days after review April 2008 Letter of agreement or Rejoinder

sent to ISBE

November/May May 2008 Review materials forwarded to STCB

December/June June 2008 STCB Accreditation Recommendation determined


July 2008 Superintendent letter - STCB Accreditation Recommendation


August 2008 Can file “Notice of Objection or accept recommendations by not responding


September 2008 Submit supporting documentation to support Notice of Objection

Annual Report October 2008 Annual Report due “next available meeting”

November 2008 State Board reviews STCB recommendations and materials – Accreditation Decision


December 2008 Notify institution of Accreditation Decision

NEXT REVIEW March 2009

- 96 -

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Division of Professional Development

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW SCHEDULE

July 18, 2003

Semester/Year Original Schedule ISBE/NCATE Review State-Only Review Fall 2003

Fall 2003 Chicago State University Fall 2003 DePaul University Fall 2003 Illinois State University Fall 2003 Northeastern Illinois University

Spring 2004 Spring 2004 Eureka College - focused visit Fall 2004 Lincoln Christian College - Initial Spring 2004 Olivet Nazarene University – Initial

(State observer) Olivet Nazarene University - focused visit

Spring 2004 National-Louis University Fall 2004

Fall 2003 Illinois Wesleyan University Spring 2004 Greenville College Spring 2004 Lake Forest College Spring 2004 Trinity Christian College

Spring 2005 Fall 2003 Benedictine University Spring 2004 Elmhurst College Spring 2005 Illinois College - full visit Spring 2005 North Central College -focused visit Spring 2004 Trinity International University

Fall 2005 Fall 2005 Blackburn College – full visit Spring 2004 Northwestern University Spring 2004 Quincy University Fall 2005 Rockford College – focused visit Spring 2004 School of the Art Institute - Chicago Fall 2005 University of Chicago – full visit

Spring 2006 Fall 2004 Aurora University Fall 2004 Bradley University Spring 2005 Kendall College Fall 2004 Lewis University Fall 2005 McKendree College - Initial Fall 2004 Wheaton College

Fall 2006 Spring 2005 Erikson Institute Spring 2005 Monmouth College Spring 2005 Saint Xavier University Spring 2005 Southern Illinois University -

Edwardsville

Spring 2005 University of Illinois - Chicago Spring 2007

Fall 2005 Columbia College Fall 2005 Hebrew Theological College Fall 2005 Keller Graduate School of Management Fall 2005 University of St. Francis

Fall 2007 Spring 2007 Illinois Institute of Technology

- 97 -

Spring 2006 MacMurray College Spring 2006 Millikin University Spring 2006 North Park University

Semester/Year Original Schedule ISBE/NCATE Review State-Only Review

Spring 2008 2nd NCATE 2000

Fall 2006 Concordia University Fall 2006 Dominican University Fall 2006 Eastern Illinois University

Spring 2006 Roosevelt University (pilot 2000) Fall 2008

Spring 2007 Knox College Fall 2006 Northern Illinois University Fall 2006 Southern Illinois University -

Carbondale

Spring 2007 University of Illinois – Urbana/Champaign

Spring 2009 Fall 2007 Governors State University Fall 2007 Judson College Fall 2007 University of Illinois - Springfield Fall 2007 VanderCook College of Music

Fall 2009 Spring 2008 Augustana College Fall 2007 Principia College Spring 2008 Loyola University Spring 2008 Western Illinois University

- 98 -

Illinois Institutional Review Accreditation Decisions

Institution Accreditation Decision

NCATE/ Non-NCATE

Date of Review

Next Scheduled

Review

Reason for Review

Augustana College

Continuing Accreditation

NCATE April 2003 *** Fall 2009 Accreditation Review

Aurora University


Non-NCATE October 1999 Spring 2006 Accreditation Review

Benedictine University



Blackburn College

Accreditation with Probation

Non-NCATE October 2000 Fall 2005 Full Visit - SBE

Bradley University


NCATE November 1999

Spring 2006 Accreditation Review

Chicago State University


NCATE November 1998

Fall 2003 Accreditation Review

Columbia College



Concordia University


NCATE October 2001 Spring 2008 Accreditation Review

DePaul University


NCATE October 1998 Fall 2003 Accreditation Review

Dominican University



Eastern Illinois University


NCATE November 2001


Elmhurst College


NCATE May 1999 Spring 2005 Accreditation Review

Erikson Institute Continuing Accreditation

Non-NCATE March 2000 Fall 2006 Accreditation Review

Eureka College Accreditation w/ Conditions

Non-NCATE November 2001

Spring 2004 Focused Visit

Governors State University

STCB – June 2003 Continuing Accreditation

NCATE (March 2003)

October 2002 Spring 2009 Six-Month Report (*)

Greenville College


Non-NCATE May 1999 Fall 2004 Accreditation Review

Hebrew Theological College




Illinois College Accreditation with Probation

Non-NCATE April 2002 Spring 2005 Full Visit - SBE

Illinois Institute of Technology



Illinois State University



Illinois Continuing Non-NCATE November Fall 2004 Accreditation

- 99 -

Wesleyan University

Accreditation 1998 Review

Judson College STCB – June 2003 Accreditation w/ Conditions

Non-NCATE October 2002 Spring 2009 Accreditation Review (*)

Keller Graduate School of Management


Non-NCATE September 2000


Kendall College Continuing Accreditation

Non-NCATE April 2000 Spring 2006 Accreditation Review

Knox College Continuing Accreditation

Non-NCATE April 2002 Fall 2008 Accreditation Review

Lake Forest College



Lewis University Continuing Accreditation

NCATE November 1999


Loyola University


Non-NCATE April 2003 *** Fall 2009 Accreditation Review

MacMurray College

STCB– June 2003 Continuing Accreditation

Non-NCATE April 2001 Fall 2007 Accreditation Review (*)

McKendree College




Institution Accreditation Decision

NCATE/ Non-NCATE

Date of Review

Next Scheduled

Review

Reason for Review

Millikin University

STCB– June 2003 Continuing Accreditation


Monmouth College



National-Louis University


NCATE May 1999 Spring 2004 Accreditation Review

North Central College

Accreditation w/ Conditions

Non-NCATE April 2002 Spring 2005 Focused Visit – SBE

North Park University

STCB - June 2003 Continuing Accreditation


Northeastern Illinois University



Northern Illinois University



Northwestern University


Non-NCATE May 1999 Fall 2005 Accreditation Review

Olivet Nazarene University

Accreditation w/ Conditions

Non-NCATE April 2002 Spring 2004 Focused Visit - SBE

Principia College STCB – June 2003 Continuing Accreditation

Non-NCATE October 2002 Fall 2009 Accreditation Review (*)

- 100 -

Quincy University



Rockford College

STCB – June 2003 Accreditation w/ Conditions

Non-NCATE October 2002 Fall 2005 Focused Visit (*)

Roosevelt University


NCATE Spring 2001 Spring 2008 Accreditation Review

Saint Xavier University


NCATE April 2000 Fall 2006 Accreditation Review

School of the Art Institute of Chicago



Southern Illinois University at Carbondale


NCATE November 2001

Fall 2008 Accreditation Review

Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville


NCATE April 2000 Fall 2006 Accreditation Review

Trinity Christian College



Trinity International University


Non-NCATE March 1999 Spring 2005 Accreditation Review

University of Chicago

Accreditation with Probation

Non-NCATE April 2002 Fall 2005 Full Visit - SBE

University of Illinois at Chicago



University of Illinois at Springfield

STCB Review – June 2003 Accreditation w/ Conditions

Non-NCATE October 2002 Spring 2009 Six-Month Report (*) Spring 2004

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Accreditation w/Conditions

Non-NCATE April 2002 Fall 2008 Six-Month Report Fall 2003

University of St. Francis




VanderCook College of Music

STCB Review – June 2003 Continuing Accreditation


Spring 2009 Accreditation Review (*)

Western Illinois University


NCATE April 2003 *** Fall 2009 Accreditation Review

Wheaton College


NCATE October 1999 Spring 2006 Accreditation Review

- 101 -


August 20, 2003 TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Robert E. Schiller, Superintendent Christopher A. Koch, Director Agenda Topic: Approval of Mediator Contracts Materials: None Staff Contact(s): Jimmy Gunnell, Division Administrator Sherry Colegrove, Principal Education Consultant Purpose of Agenda Item To present staff’s recommendation regarding the appointment of mediators and to seek the Board’s approval of the FY04 Mediator contracts. Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item The Board will approve staff’s recommendations so the Mediator contracts can be awarded for FY 04. Background Information In accordance with the provisions of the 23 Illinois Administrative Code Section 226.560, the State Board of Education is charged with the responsibilities associated with the selection, training and maintenance of the list of trained, experienced mediators who are knowledgeable about the laws and regulations relating to the provisions of special education and related services. Mediators are screened by ISBE staff based on interviews conducted with interested individuals. Although, some mediators have limited experience in educational mediations, staff believes these individuals are capable of transitioning their skills to educational disputes. Examples of the work and background of our mediators include: law, social work, education, special education, health administration, foster parents, surrogate parents, parents of children with disabilities, and former due process hearing officers. Several mediators are currently or have served as court mediators. All newly selected mediators are required to participate in a training sequence prepared and administrated by State Board staff. In

- 102 -

addition to the initial training sequence, all mediators are required to participate annually in training activities as identified by the State Board to ensure all mediators are knowledgeable of the laws and regulations relating to the provisions of special education and related services. The costs associated with such training are covered by the State Board of Education. An evaluation form is sent to each party along with the notification that a mediation date has been established. The results of the evaluation forms are reviewed by ISBE staff and shared with the appropriate mediator. Mediations are an important service in that they reduce the number of due process hearings conducted, thus providing an important cost savings to districts and parents. 206 mediations were conducted between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2003. Each year we see an increase in the number of mediations held which has a direct impact on the number of due process hearings. The mediators recommended for appointment in FY04 are as follows:

Candace T. Pydo Karyn Lynne Williams Paula Weinbaum Karen L. Shoshana Alan R. Post Alan G. Schuster Ratino-Vincent Epps Mike Ross Janet Harej

The mediators recommended for reappointment in FY04 are as follows:

Andrea Becker Brigitte Bell Jennifer Bollero Lynn Gaffigan Lisa Landis Hannum Lynn Carp Jacob Mike Kotner William London Michael Nathanson Christine Pistone

Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications Policy Implications

- 103 -

The State Board of Education is required to review and approve the appointment and reappointment of mediators. Mediators are necessary in order for Illinois to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and 23 IAC 226.560. Budget Implications During FY03, $24,600 of federal IDEA funding was expended as of August 1, 2003. The FY04 budget for this activity is estimated at $95,000 ($5,000 per Mediator). An increased amount is being allowed so as to reduce incremental requests for additional funds throughout the year. ISBE needs to increase the cadre of mediators (from 10 to 19) to ensure all mediation cases are provided a mediator within a timely manner. Legislative Action Not Applicable. Pros and Cons of Various Actions The approval of mediator contracts will ensure that ISBE fulfills federal and state requirements to offer a process of mediation that can be used when there are disputes regarding the implementation of IDEA in local districts. Superintendent’s Recommendation The Superintendent recommends approving the 19 Mediator Contracts referred to herein. Next Steps ISBE staff will begin selecting mediators from the list on a rotation bases.

- 104 -


TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Robert E. Schiller, Superintendent Christopher A. Koch, Director Agenda Topic: Ratification of Due Process Hearing Officer Contracts Materials: Listing of Hearing Officers Terms Staff Contact(s): Jimmy Gunnell, Division Administrator Dale Boyd, Principal Education Consultant Purpose of Agenda Item To request the State Board’s approval to grant one year contracts for the FY04 Due Process Hearing Officers whose terms expire June 30, 2004. Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item The Board will review the contracts of those hearing officers whose terms expire June 30, 2004. Background Information In accordance with the provisions at 105 ILCS 5/14-8.02a, the Due Process Screening Committee is charged with responsibilities associated with the screening, appointment, and reappointment of due process hearing officers. The application process requires each applicant to provide a comprehensive disclosure of his/her professional background and work experience. Applicants must hold at least a masters degree, a juris doctor degree, or a bachelor’s degree with relevant experience. Applications by individuals on the State Board of Education’s list of eligible due process hearing officers when recruitment of due process officers is conducted shall be considered if they meet the qualifications listed above. All impartial hearing officers recommended shall complete initial and all follow-up trainings in order to be eligible to serve as an impartial due process hearing officer.

- 105 -

Due process hearing officers are appointed to serve alternating two year terms. After the initial term all reappointments shall also be for a term of two years. With regard to the reappointment of hearing officers, an external training entity conducts an annual evaluation of each hearing officer whose term expires June 30th of the current year and recommends to the State Board of Education whether the hearing officers whose terms are expiring should be reappointed. In addition, the external training entity annually provides a statistical overview of the remaining hearing officers (this includes the 9 officers listed below) whose terms expire June 30th of the following year. During the State Board of Education’s June 16-17, 2003 Board meeting, the Board accepted the Due Process Screening Committee’s recommendations regarding the reappointment of those hearing officers whose terms expired June 30, 2003. At a special meeting on May 27, 2003, the Due Process Screening Committee was provided statistical data, prepared by the training entity, with regard to the hearing officers whose terms expire June 30, 2004. Whereby, no immediate action was necessary. The following hearing officers whose terms of appointment expire June 30, 2004, discussed above are as follows:

Hearing Officer Term Expires Marie Bracki June 30, 2004 Richard Brimer June 30, 2004 Gail Friedman June 30, 2004 Ann Breen-Greco June 30, 2004 Marian McElroy June 30, 2004 Carolyn Smaron June 30, 2004 Jim Wolter June 30, 2004 Kathleen Dillon Narko June 30, 2004 Katherine Black June 30, 2004 Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications Policy Implications The State Board of Education is required to review and approve annually the Due Process Screening Committee recommendations for the appointment and reappointment of hearing officers. Due process hearing officers are necessary in order for Illinois to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and 105 ILCS 5/14-8.02a. Budget Implications During FY02, $630,300 of federal IDEA Part B funding was expended and $425,804 has been expended to date for FY03. The FY04 budget for this activity is expected to be congruent with previous years’ expenditures. Legislative Action Not Applicable.

- 106 -

Pros and Cons of Various Actions Subsequent renewal of contracts will ensure that ISBE fulfills federal and state requirements for the operation of an impartial due process system. Superintendent’s Recommendation The Superintendent recommends ratification of the nine Impartial Hearing Officer Contracts referred to herein whose terms expire June 30, 2004. Next Steps ISBE staff will begin assigning to administrative proceedings the above mentioned hearing officers.

- 107 -

Hearing Officers 2003-04

Hearing Officer Term Expires Charles Aschenbrenner June 30, 2005 Katherine M. Black June 30, 2004 Marie Bracki June 30, 2004 Ms. Ann Breen-Greco June 30, 2004 Dr. Richard Brimer June 30, 2004 Mr. Alan Cook June 30, 2005 Julia Quinn Dempsey June 30, 2005 Gail Tuler Friedman June 30, 2004 Vivian Gordon June 30, 2005 Ms. Nancy Hablutzel June 30, 2005 Robert Ladenson June 30, 2005 Marian McElroy June 30, 2004 Kathleen Dillon Narko June 30, 2004 Francis Nowik June 30, 2005 Ms. Carolyn Ann Smaron June 30, 2004 Stacey Stutzman June 30, 2005 James Wolter June 30, 2004

- 108 -


August 20, 2003 TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Robert E. Schiller, Superintendent Respicio Vazquez, General Counsel Agenda Topic: Rules for Adoption – Part 5000 (Public Information, Rulemaking and Organization) Materials: Recommended Amendments Staff Contact(s): Sally Vogl Purpose of Agenda Item To present the amendments for adoption by the Board. Expected Outcomes of Agenda Item The Board’s adoption of the amendments to Part 5000. Background Information The Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (IAPA) requires all agencies to maintain certain of their operational policies as rules. The State Board has two sets of rules on file with the Secretary of State that respond to this requirement: Part 5000 (Public Information, Rulemaking and Organization) and Part 5001 (Access to Information of the State Board of Education under the Freedom of Information Act). These rules differ from all the agency’s other rules in that no publication of proposed rulemaking or public comment period is required. Rules such as these may simply be filed with the Secretary of State and become effective immediately. The new rule presented in this packet responds to Section 5-145 of the IAPA, which provides that, “Any interested person may request an agency to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule.” Section 5-145 requires that agencies have in place a procedure for responding to any such requests. New Section 5000.115 will require that requests be submitted in writing to the Rules Coordinator and that they set forth certain information. The goals of these requirements are (1) to ensure that issues raised are promptly

- 109 -

brought to the attention of the responsible agency staff, and (2) to enable staff to determine the goal and merits of each request and respond accordingly. We believe that written information providing a justification for a requested change in the agency’s rules should be required, for two reasons. First, all the agency’s existing rules have been promulgated using a formal process involving the opportunity for written public comment as well as oversight by an arm of the General Assembly. It stands to reason that comparable formality would be involved in considering potential changes, and the individual making the request should be responsible for explaining his or her reasoning. Second, we hope to avoid the type of misunderstandings that might arise if parties believed they could initiate changes simply by mentioning their concerns to any agency staff member. Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications Policy Implications: None. Budget Implications: None. Legislative Action: None needed. Communication: Please see “Next Steps” below. Superintendent’s Recommendation It is recommended that the Board adopt the following motion:

The State Board of Education hereby adopts the proposed rulemaking for:

Public Information, Rulemaking and Organization (2 Illinois Administrative Code 5000).

Next Steps The adopted rules will be filed with the Administrative Code Division to become effective immediately. Staff throughout the agency will be made aware of the procedure established by the rules so that any external requests for consideration can be considered as required by the IAPA. In addition, explanatory material will be added to the rules-related portion of the ISBE web site so that interested parties and staff will have ready access to information about this procedure.

- 110 -

TITLE 2: GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION SUBTITLE F: EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES

CHAPTER I: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

PART 5000 PUBLIC INFORMATION, RULEMAKING AND ORGANIZATION

SUBPART A: PUBLIC INFORMATION

Section 5000.10 Applicability 5000.20 Public Requests 5000.30 Public Submissions

SUBPART B: RULEMAKING Section 5000.100 Applicability 5000.110 Initiation 5000.115 Consideration of Public Requests for Rulemaking 5000.120 State Board of Education Review and Adoption 5000.130 Public Inspection of Rules

SUBPART C: ORGANIZATION Section 5000.200 Applicability 5000.210 State Board of Education Organization TABLE A Organization of the Illinois State Board of Education (Repealed) TABLE B Administrative Structure of the State Board of Education (Repealed) APPENDIX A Organization of the Illinois State Board of Education APPENDIX B Administrative Structure of the State Board of Education AUTHORITY: Implementing and authorized by Section 5-15 of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act [5 ILCS 100/5-15]. SOURCE: Adopted and codified at 8 Ill. Reg. 17875, effective September 17, 1984; amended at 26 Ill. Reg. 12157, effective July 29, 2002; amended at 27 Ill. Reg. _____, effective _____________.

SUBPART B: RULEMAKING

- 111 -

Section 5000.115 Consideration of Public Requests for Rulemaking Pursuant to Section 5-145 of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act [5 ILCS 100/5-145], any interested person may request an agency to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule. If, within 30 days after submission of a request, the agency has not initiated rulemaking proceedings in accordance with Section 5-35, the request shall be deemed to have been denied. Requests received by the State Board of Education shall be addressed as set forth in this Section.

a) An interested person who wishes to initiate formal consideration by the State Board of Education of a request to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule shall submit a written request to that effect.

1) The request shall:

A) identify the rule in question, if one exists; B) describe the problem created by the text of the current rule or

absence of a rule; C) propose the substance of the desired rule or amendment or identify

the text that should be repealed, as applicable; D) describe the affiliation of the individual submitting the request or

the individual’s experience in matters related to the rule in question; and

E) provide an address to which the agency should direct its reply.

2) The request shall be addressed to the Agency Rules Coordinator and may be mailed or delivered to the Springfield office of the State Board of Education or submitted via e-mail to [email protected].

b) The Rules Coordinator shall initiate review of the request by management staff

within the organizational unit responsible for the rules that are the subject of the request.

c) The responsible staff may consult with other individuals knowledgeable about the

subject matter of the rules in question and shall respond within 20 days after the agency’s receipt of the request as to whether the requested change is warranted and why or why not.

d) If the requested change is deemed warranted, the Rules Coordinator shall seek the

Superintendent’s authorization to initiate the rulemaking based upon the request and staff’s rationale for supporting it.

- 112 -

e) No later than 30 days after the agency’s receipt of the request, the individual submitting the request shall be informed in writing as to the agency’s determination regarding it.

f) Staff members of the State Board of Education who receive oral requests for

changes in the agency’s rules shall invite the interested parties to submit written requests conforming to the requirements of subsection (a) of this Section for formal consideration.

(Source: Added at 27 Ill. Reg. _____, effective _____________)

- 113 -


TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Robert E. Schiller, Superintendent David Wood, Director Agenda Topic: Approval of Support of resolution to eliminate the

reduced price meal category Materials: Illinois State Board of Education – Sample Resolution Staff Contact(s): Rita Harper, Acting Division Administrator Purpose of Agenda Item To obtain the Illinois State Board of Education’s support of the American School Food Service Association’s resolution regarding the elimination of the reduced price meal category. This would result in all children from households with income up to 185% of the poverty line to obtain school meals at no charge (this level would encompass the free and reduced price meal categories). Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item To obtain the Illinois State Board of Education’s endorsement of the resolution drafted by the American School Food Service Association to eliminate the reduced price meal category for all Child Nutrition Programs. Background Information At this time, Child Nutrition Programs have three levels of meal categories: free, reduced price and paid. The American School Food Service Association (ASFSA), whose mission includes advancing the availability, quality and acceptance of school nutrition programs as an integral part of education and striving to see that all children have access to healthful school meals and nutrition education, endorses the elimination of the reduced price meal category. The elimination of the reduced priced meal category would result in providing school meals at no charge to all children from households with income up to 185% of the poverty line (those eligible for the free or reduced price meal category). Children and parents benefit from this resolution by allowing children eligible for reduced price meals greater access to nutritious meals at no cost and allowing parents to spend money previously spent on school meals for other household needs.

- 114 -

Currently, families with income between 131 and 185 percent of poverty are eligible for reduced price meals. In Illinois, based on School Year 2002-2003 data, there are over 121,000 children eligible for reduced price meals in the School based programs alone. Therefore, the impact to Illinois families with income between 131 and 185 percent of poverty could be great. According to ASFSA, studies have shown that participation in school meal programs by reduced eligible students declines as the month goes on. This decline is due to families running out of money near the end of the month to pay the reduced price meal charge. The maximum rate a school may charge a student eligible for a reduced price lunch is $0.40, a reduced price breakfast is $0.30 and a reduced price after school snack is $0.15. Even though these maximum meal charges may not seem like a lot of money, it continues to be a major barrier to participation in the program for the working poor. As of July 16, 2003, support for this resolution has been obtained from the following groups:

• North Carolina State Board of Education, • California Association of School Business Officials, • Texas Department of Agriculture, • Delaware Education Association, and • Three local school boards in Delaware.

Additionally, in early August 2003, Senator Elizabeth Dole introduced legislation that would eliminate the reduced price meal category. The bill is co-sponsored by Senator Pat Roberts and would result in no charge for school meals for all children from households with incomes below 185 percent of the poverty line. This bill would eliminate the reduced price lunch category in gradual steps over a five year period. Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications According to ASFSA, there would be NO cost to the local school districts if this were adopted. It could potentially decrease the processing time for sponsors (schools, child care centers, community organizations, etc) for household applications. This change may increase the total number of children participating in the child nutrition meal programs. Policy Implications

• If the federal regulations governing the child nutrition programs change at any time, as the administering agency of those programs, we are responsible to update materials and information and make all sponsors aware of such changes. This is standard procedure for our division.

Budget Implications

- 115 -

• Based on FY02 data, the total IL Free appropriation (state appropriation) was $21,500,000. Based on state rules, City of Chicago Public Schools receives 50.7% ($10,900,500). The remaining $10,599,500 is provided as a per meal reimbursement for all remaining schools in the state. For FY02, ISBE paid $.1614 per free lunch and free breakfast claimed. If this proposal would become regulation, the IL Free appropriation (state appropriation) for that same year would have resulted in a rate of $.1311 per free lunch and free breakfast claimed.

Legislative Action

• None. These proposed changes would be made at the Federal Level and no change in state legislation would be required.

Communication

• If this proposal is passed through the reauthorization process, all sponsors of the child nutrition programs would be notified through the standard means of communication. (Workshops, newsletters, regulatory communications, etc.)

Pros and Cons of Various Actions The pros of this proposal include the following:

• Sponsors would increase the ease of processing household applications. • Financial benefit to all sponsors of the Child Nutrition Programs would be greater

federal reimbursement. • More federal dollars being brought into the State of Illinois.

The cons of this proposal include the following:

• ISBE would be responsible to make minor modifications to the forms, publications and computer systems currently in use.

• Sponsors would need to make minor adjustments to systems in place in local district to accommodate this change.

• The Illinois free rate (state reimbursement) may be further prorated to schools to accommodate the increase in the number of free meals claimed. (Refer to Budget implications section for more information.)

Superintendent’s Recommendation The Superintendent recommends that the Board approve the support of the resolution to eliminate the reduced price meal category. Next Steps

- 116 -

If support for this resolution is obtained, this resolution will be sent to the State of Illinois’ Congressional delegation in Washington, D.C.

- 117 -

RESOLUTION

Whereas, the federal child nutrition programs, including the school lunch and breakfast programs, are important to the health and education of the children of_________________; Whereas, the child nutrition programs must be reauthorized by the Congress of the United States during the current fiscal year; Whereas, reduced price school meals are offered, in participating schools, to children with family income between 130 percent of the poverty line and 185 percent of the poverty line; Whereas, many families in the reduced price income category are finding it difficult to pay the reduced fee and, for some families, the fee is an insurmountable barrier to participation; Whereas, the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) provides free benefits to all participants with family income below 185 percent of poverty; and Whereas, legislation has been introduced by Senators Dole (R-NC) and Roberts (R-KS) to phase out the reduced price meal program, harmonizing school meals with WIC; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the State (or City) of _______________supports reauthorization of all federal child nutrition programs; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State (or City) of _______________urges the Congress of the United States to eliminate the reduced price school meals programs, and to provide free meals for all children with family incomes below 185 percent of poverty; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this RESOLUTION shall be sent to the State’s Congressional delegation in Washington, D.C.

- 118 -


TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Robert E. Schiller, Superintendent David Wood, Director Agenda Topic: Acceptance of ISBE Monthly Reports

o July 2003 Fiscal/Agency operations reports Materials: Appropriations and Spending by Program Federal Applications and Awards (NA) Financial Status Report (Contract & Grant Detail, including

contracts to review for FY04 implementation) $1 M Contract (NA, there are no proposed contracts this month for

the Board to review) Monthly Headcount Graph Staff Detail Personnel Transactions Staff Contact(s): David Wood, Lynne Curry, and Clay Slagle. Purpose of Agenda Item To provide the Board standard reports with key information on fiscal and administrative activities of the state agency. Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item The Board will receive and approve baseline data from a series of reports on fiscal and administrative activities which provide one basis for gauging agency progress over time. Background Information In June 2002, the State Board adopted bylaws outlining a new committee structure under which fiscal, audit and operations issues will be handled by the Fiscal and Audit Committee. Superintendent Schiller requested that the agency organize and standardize the financial and headcount data provided to the Board for their future policy work and decision-making. Currently the following Reports are provided or are being developed.

1. Budget / Annual Report (Annually in January) 2. Condition of Public Education (December) 3. Comptroller SEA Report (Annually in February)

- 119 -

4. Appropriation and Expenditure (Monthly) 5. Financial Status Report - Contract/Grant Detail (Monthly) 6. Business Plans at the Director Level (Quarterly) 7. Headcount Reports (Monthly)

Personnel Transactions Staff Detail by Division Monthly Headcount Graph The first and third reports have been provided for several years. These provide an overview of the elementary and secondary education system, the Board Goals, and the programs operated by the agency. This year the Condition of Public Education document was added to review the status of the elementary and secondary education system in Illinois. It is a precursor to the Annual Report/Budget document and much of it is incorporated into that document. It is intended to layout the current situation and challenges in Illinois and outline options for policy and program activities to improve the current situation in the future. The Monthly or Quarterly Fiscal and Headcount Reports were first provided to the Board in August 2002. These provide information regarding staffing and funding as well as details of contracts over $50,000 and grants the agency is processing. Agency Business Plans were first implemented in FY01 to help the Board and Management provide context to the larger education system and the Board Goals and to walk between these and the detailed funding information at the Division level. The FY04 Business Plans are not yet complete but a Business Plan report is scheduled for the end of the first quarter of FY04. The Board specifically approves all proposed contracts over $1M prior to the issuance of an RFP. This month there are no such proposed contracts. While FY04 began on July 1, the state and agency fiscal focus remains on FY03 through lapse period which ends August 31. The FY04 reports will begin in September. Superintendent’s Recommendation The Superintendent recommends that the Board accepts and approves these monthly reports. Next Steps Continue to provide these reports pursuant to the schedule above.

Illinois State Board of Education

2003 Appropriation & Spending by Program 07/01/2002 thru 07/31/2003

(Dollars in Thousands)

FY

Initiatives

Appropriation YTD Expenditures

Grants * OperationsTotal* OperationsGrants Total

STATE

Distributive Grants $4,479,593.3 $198.8$4,479,792.1$4,553,825.0 $1,154.9$4,554,979.9

$3,142,100.0 $0.0$3,142,100.0General State Aid $3,142,100.0 $0.0$3,142,100.0

$64,158.2 $0.0$64,158.2General State Aid-Supplemental/Hold Harmless $64,200.0 $0.0$64,200.0

$66,815.4 $0.0$66,815.4ADA School Safety & Education Block Grant $66,854.1 $0.0$66,854.1

$1,656.1 $0.0$1,656.1District Consolidation Cost $1,669.4 $0.0$1,669.4

$64,447.3 $0.0$64,447.3Early Intervention $64,447.3 $0.0$64,447.3

$14,533.4 $0.0$14,533.4Gifted Education Reimbursement $19,000.6 $0.0$19,000.6

$5,902.5 $198.8$6,101.3Illinois Charter Schools $6,271.8 $1,154.9$7,426.7

$302.2 $0.0$302.2School Breakfast Incentive Program $473.5 $0.0$473.5

$0.0 $0.0$0.0Textbook Loan Program $29,126.5 $0.0$29,126.5

Mandated Categoricals $1,119,678.2 $0.0$1,119,678.2$1,159,681.8 $0.0$1,159,681.8

$20,321.9 $0.0$20,321.9Illinois Free Lunch/Breakfast Program $20,741.2 $0.0$20,741.2

$10,724.2 $0.0$10,724.2Orphanage Tuition 18-3 (Reg Ed) $13,988.2 $0.0$13,988.2

$225,711.9 $0.0$225,711.9Sp-Ed - Extraordinary Services $225,712.0 $0.0$225,712.0

$68,443.0 $0.0$68,443.0Sp-Ed - Orphanage Tuition 14-7 $104,763.2 $0.0$104,763.2

$303,506.9 $0.0$303,506.9Sp-Ed - Personnel Reimbursement $303,506.9 $0.0$303,506.9

$47,134.4 $0.0$47,134.4Sp-Ed - Private Tuition $47,134.4 $0.0$47,134.4

$5,830.4 $0.0$5,830.4Sp-Ed - Summer School $5,830.4 $0.0$5,830.4

$218,097.0 $0.0$218,097.0Sp-Ed - Transportation $218,097.0 $0.0$218,097.0

$219,908.5 $0.0$219,908.5Transportation - Regular/Vocational $219,908.5 $0.0$219,908.5

Standards - Assessment & Accountability $6,699.3 $15,657.7$22,357.0$7,009.7 $19,911.0$26,920.7

Ensuring Quality Ed Personnel $11,299.5 $286.8$11,586.4$19,560.0 $2,402.0$21,962.0

$2,914.3 $0.0$2,914.3Illinois Scholars Program $2,914.3 $0.0$2,914.3

$0.0 $0.0$0.0Mentoring - Induction & Recruitment $7,553.0 $547.0$8,100.0

$0.0 $0.0$0.0Mentoring - Induction Administrators $0.0 $450.0$450.0

$2,822.1 $286.8$3,108.9Teacher Education $3,335.0 $1,405.0$4,740.0

$450.0 $0.0$450.0Teach America $450.0 $0.0$450.0

$5,113.1 $0.0$5,113.1Teachers Academy for Math & Science $5,307.7 $0.0$5,307.7

Reading & Mathematics $79,386.6 $978.4$80,365.1$79,445.4 $1,209.9$80,655.3

$224.3 $0.0$224.3Family Literacy $224.3 $16.9$241.2

$0.0 $672.3$672.3Mathematics Statewide $0.0 $820.0$820.0

$79,162.3 $306.1$79,468.4Reading Improvement Block Grant $79,221.1 $373.0$79,594.1

Birth to Eight $179,340.7 $552.0$179,892.8$183,595.3 $5,796.5$189,391.8

Page 1 of 5Final FYxx Budget.rpt 8/8/2003 4:43 pm

Initiatives



$179,251.2 $552.0$179,803.2Early Childhood $183,505.7 $666.1$184,171.8

$89.6 $0.0$89.6Universal Preschool $89.6 $5,130.4$5,220.0

Academic Difficulty $115,236.4 $594.6$115,831.0$122,960.6 $1,016.8$123,977.4

$16,059.9 $88.1$16,148.0Alternative Learning/Regional Safe Schools $16,160.9 $112.8$16,273.7

$53,381.8 $0.0$53,381.8Bilingual Education $60,344.3 $0.0$60,344.3

$24,104.3 $204.5$24,308.8Bridge/Classroom/Extended Days Program $24,764.6 $291.8$25,056.4

$916.0 $35.3$951.3Parental Involvement/Solid Foundation $916.3 $48.4$964.7

$2,146.4 $166.2$2,312.6Substance Abuse & Violence Prevention $2,146.4 $235.4$2,381.8

$18,628.1 $100.5$18,728.6Truant Alternative Optional Education $18,628.1 $328.4$18,956.5

Learning Technologies $16,560.3 $5,550.9$22,111.2$17,263.0 $7,762.0$25,025.0

School Infrastructure $0.0 $7,228.0$7,228.0$0.0 $7,228.0$7,228.0

$0.0 $7,228.0$7,228.0Emergency Financial Assistance Program $0.0 $7,228.0$7,228.0

Career Preparation $57,990.4 $1,688.4$59,678.8$59,018.7 $1,939.7$60,958.4

$1,881.2 $0.0$1,881.2Agricultural Education $1,881.2 $0.0$1,881.2

$6,546.5 $135.7$6,682.1Career Awareness & Development $7,067.7 $175.0$7,242.7

$49,562.7 $1,552.8$51,115.5Career and Technical Education $50,069.8 $1,764.7$51,834.5

Regional Services $21,150.4 $981.3$22,131.8$21,564.7 $1,286.6$22,851.3

$1,334.9 $981.3$2,316.2ISBE Regional Services $1,344.3 $1,286.6$2,630.9

$7,791.7 $0.0$7,791.7ROE - Salaries $8,150.0 $0.0$8,150.0

$12,023.8 $0.0$12,023.8ROE - School Service $12,070.4 $0.0$12,070.4

Administration $0.0 $23,731.3$23,731.3$0.0 $24,999.7$24,999.7

Targeted Initiatives $20,386.4 $565.5$20,951.9$20,387.2 $595.1$20,982.3

$150.0 $0.0$150.0American Education Institute $150.0 $0.0$150.0

$168.8 $0.0$168.8Blind & Dyslexic $168.8 $0.0$168.8

$0.0 $456.0$456.0Community/Residential Services Authority $0.0 $479.2$479.2

$144.7 $0.0$144.7Illinois Economic Education $144.7 $0.0$144.7

$385.9 $0.0$385.9Illinois Learning Partnership $385.9 $0.0$385.9

$1,121.0 $0.0$1,121.0Material Center for the Visually Impaired $1,121.0 $0.0$1,121.0

$217.1 $0.0$217.1Metro East Consortium for Child Advocacy $217.1 $0.0$217.1

$72.4 $0.0$72.4Middle Level Schools $72.4 $0.0$72.4

$578.8 $0.0$578.8Minority Transition Program $578.8 $0.0$578.8

$2,855.5 $0.0$2,855.5Philip J. Rock Center & School $2,855.5 $0.0$2,855.5

$222.5 $0.0$222.5Tax Equivalent Grants $222.6 $0.0$222.6

$14,469.6 $109.5$14,579.1Transportation Reimbursement to Parents $14,470.4 $115.9$14,586.3

$5,159,931.8SubTotal - GENERAL FUNDS $5,084,629.6 $68,074.2 $4,987,643.5 $50,785.8$5,038,429.3


Initiatives



Retirement Systems $984,495.7 $0.0$984,495.7$984,495.7 $0.0

OTHER GRF FUNDS

$984,495.7

$65,044.7 $0.0$65,044.7Chicago $65,044.7 $0.0$65,044.7

$919,451.0 $0.0$919,451.0Downstate $919,451.0 $0.0$919,451.0

$6,144,427.5TOTAL GENERAL FUNDS (New Approps.) $6,069,125.3 $68,074.2 $5,972,139.2 $50,785.8$6,022,925.0

Textbook Reappropriation $27,521.2 $0.0$27,521.2$27,785.3 $0.0$27,785.3

$6,172,212.8TOTAL GENERAL FUNDS (New & Reapprops.) $6,096,910.6 $68,074.2 $5,999,660.3 $50,785.8$6,050,446.1

NON STATE

School Infrastructure Fund $0.0 $0.0$0.0$44,999.2 $800.0$45,799.2

$0.0 $755.6$755.6Debt Administration $0.0 $800.0$800.0

$6,892.4 $0.0$6,892.4School Technology Revolving Loan $44,999.2 $0.0$44,999.2

Illinois Future Fund $984.5 $0.0$984.5$991.5 $0.0$991.5

Driver Education $15,744.8 $374.0$16,118.7$15,750.0 $700.0$16,450.0

State Pension Fund $50,765.0 $0.0$50,765.0$50,765.0 $0.0$50,765.0

Other Funds $6,985.4 $829.9$7,815.3$11,272.5 $3,290.5$14,563.0

$0.0 $0.0$0.0Charter Schools Revolving Loan Fund $2,000.0 $0.0$2,000.0

$6,263.5 $0.0$6,263.5Emergency Financial Assistance Fund $8,033.0 $0.0$8,033.0

$2.9 $98.3$101.2ISBE Fund $2.9 $797.1$800.0

$6.1 $0.0$6.1ISBE Special Purpose Trust Fund $6.1 $693.9$700.0

$0.5 $39.3$39.8Private Business and Vocational Schools $0.5 $199.5$200.0

$100.0 $0.0$100.0School Technology Revolving Fund $100.0 $400.0$500.0

$0.0 $692.3$692.3Teacher Certification Fee Revolving Fund $0.0 $1,200.0$1,200.0

$612.4 $0.0$612.4Temporary Relocation Revolving Fund $1,130.0 $0.0$1,130.0

FEDERAL

Federal Funds $1,504,630.4 $26,820.5$1,531,450.9$1,889,427.5 $0.0$1,952,051.2

$390.4 $253.4$643.8Advanced Placement Fee Payment $700.0 $503.5$1,203.5

$0.0 $19.3$19.3Bilingual Education $0.0 $219.1$219.1

$295.4 $68.4$363.8Building Linkages $300.0 $400.0$700.0

$6.2 $0.0$6.2Character Education $1,000.0 $0.0$1,000.0

$900.9 $50.2$951.1Charter Schools $2,286.4 $213.6$2,500.0

$394,048.0 $5,350.0$399,398.0Child Nutrition $425,000.0 $6,415.0$431,415.0

$0.0 $0.0$0.0Christa McAuliffe Fellowship $73.0 $2.0$75.0

$10,802.9 $0.0$10,802.9Class Size Reduction $50,000.0 $0.0$50,000.0


Initiatives



$0.0 $46.6$46.6Emergency Immigrant Education $12,000.0 $256.9$12,256.9

$0.0 $38.6$38.6Foreign Language Assistance $0.0 $150.0$150.0

$0.0 $0.0$0.0GEAR-UP $6,000.0 $0.0$6,000.0

$0.0 $96.9$96.9Illinois Purchase Care Review Board $0.0 $175.6$175.6

$326,607.5 $5,086.0$331,693.5Individuals with Disabilities Education Act $400,000.0 $7,287.8$407,287.8

$297.4 $0.0$297.4IDEA - Deaf Blind $305.0 $29.4$334.4

$1,386.6 $23.8$1,410.5IDEA - Improving Plan $1,752.4 $247.6$2,000.0

$0.0 $72.6$72.6IDEA - Model Outreach $0.0 $200.0$200.0

$17,751.8 $558.5$18,310.4IDEA - Pre-School $25,000.0 $1,088.0$26,088.0

$3,007.0 $938.0$3,945.0Innovative Programs (Title VI) $18,600.0 $2,208.0$20,808.0

$863.9 $21.5$885.4Learn and Serve America $2,000.0 $58.3$2,058.3

$0.0 $91.3$91.3National Center for Education Statistics $0.0 $156.1$156.1

$12,828.5 $1,049.0$13,877.5Reading Excellence $17,830.0 $2,183.5$20,013.5

$1,160.0 $66.2$1,226.2Refugee $2,500.0 $219.6$2,719.6

$21,916.2 $91.1$22,007.3Renovation - Sp. Ed. & Technology $34,550.0 $450.0$35,000.0

$2,084.2 $213.2$2,297.3School to Work $13,400.0 $600.0$14,000.0

$9,014.2 $0.0$9,014.2Title I - Accountability $11,085.0 $0.0$11,085.0

$408,198.1 $3,946.7$412,144.9Title I - Basic Programs $447,740.8 $5,292.0$453,032.8

$8.3 $0.0$8.3Title I - Capital Expenses $8.3 $0.0$8.3

$12,049.8 $396.3$12,446.1Title I - Comprehensive School Reform $12,219.6 $433.1$12,652.7

$2,137.6 $47.3$2,184.9Title I - Education of Migratory Children $2,375.0 $135.8$2,510.8

$8,894.5 $188.8$9,083.3Title I - Even Start Family Literacy Programs $12,060.7 $252.9$12,313.6

$2,330.9 $0.0$2,330.9Title I - Neglected and Delinquent $2,700.0 $0.0$2,700.0

$28,208.5 $244.7$28,453.2Title I - Reading First $35,843.8 $2,156.2$38,000.0

$9,683.1 $317.7$10,000.8Title I - School Improvement $12,000.0 $323.7$12,323.7

$2,274.1 $538.5$2,812.6Title II - Eisenhower Professional Development $20,000.0 $763.5$20,763.5

$22,133.6 $337.7$22,471.3Title II - Enhance Ed through Technology $38,284.4 $1,971.5$40,255.9

$97,275.4 $194.0$97,469.4Title II - Quality Teachers $116,007.5 $3,992.5$120,000.0

$17,753.9 $380.1$18,134.0Title III - English Language Acquisition $19,041.2 $958.8$20,000.0

$11,602.4 $238.2$11,840.6Title IV - 21st Century Schools $38,353.3 $626.0$38,979.3

$1,860.7 $16.4$1,877.1Title IV - Community Service Program $3,004.2 $83.5$3,087.7

$14,536.5 $478.9$15,015.4Title IV - Safe & Drug Free Schools $25,000.0 $699.5$25,699.5

$11,821.5 $2.5$11,824.0Title V - Innovative Programs $19,631.8 $1,368.2$21,000.0

$1,234.1 $49.6$1,283.7Title VI - Rural & Low Income $1,308.1 $68.8$1,377.0

$0.0 $2,685.5$2,685.5Title VI - State Assessment $0.0 $13,123.0$13,123.0

$1,661.9 $133.0$1,794.9Title X - McKinney Homeless Assistance $3,000.0 $559.0$3,559.0

$0.0 $156.7$156.7Training School Health Personnel $0.0 $270.6$270.6

$196.8 $82.1$278.9Transition to Teaching $531.5 $468.5$1,000.0

$0.0 $134.2$134.2Troops to Teachers $0.0 $170.0$170.0

$41,814.4 $1,565.3$43,379.7Vocational Education $46,500.0 $4,808.0$51,308.0

$3,956.3 $199.5$4,155.8Vocational Education - Technical Prep $5,000.0 $280.0$5,280.0

$1,636.7 $352.2$1,988.9Special Congressional Initiatives $4,435.5 $754.5$5,190.0


Initiatives



$8,252,832.7TOTAL - ALL FUNDS: $7,672,456.6 $7,585,662.8 $86,793.8$8,110,116.3 $142,716.4

* See Attached Agency Operations Analysis (Services to Schools/Administration)


Expended % SpentApprop Year to Year toAmount Date Date Description

Personal Services and Related 50,612,458.9 45,347,624.6 89.6% 42,587.4 Salaries & Benefits

Contractual Services 75,804,406.3 31,091,644.2 41.0% 3,641,748.1 Agency Contracts (see below); Non-Employee Travel; Conferences; Registration Fees

Travel 2,999,311.4 1,412,249.7 47.1% 94,333.4 Staff Travel

Commodities 923,563.4 452,482.3 49.0% 81,636.1 Supplies; Books

Printing 1,039,630.0 317,469.0 30.5% 10,299.6 Agency Printing

Equipment 2,005,465.0 486,416.4 24.3% 265,275.7 Computers; Printers; Furniture

Telecommunications 1,663,627.0 660,948.1 39.7% 58,626.1 Telecommunications Expenses

Auto Operations 20,000.0 19,684.9 98.4% 497.6 Operation of Agency Autos

Grants 7,014,222.2 6,555,432.5 93.5% 59,462.0 See Detail Below

Expended % SpentFunded Year to Year toAmount Date Date Description

Agency Contracts Breakdown:

PersonnelCompsych Corporation Provide an Employee Assistance Program for ISBE

GRF 46.9 25.5 54.4% 0.0

Proact Search, Inc. Employee search for six (6) manager/director positionsGRF 5.0 2.0 40.0% 0.0Federal 13.0 4.0 30.8% 0.0

General CounselWest Group On-line legal research service

GRF 15.0 14.4 96.0% 0.0Federal 55.0 44.1 80.2% 5.1

Teacher Dismissal Court Reporters Court reporter services for Teacher Dismissal HearingsGRF 50.0 47.2 94.4% 1.1

47 - Impartial Hearing Officers Teacher Dismissal Hearing Officers - 47 - $1,500 and overGRF 84.0 71.1 84.6% 16.6

Expenditures

JulyExpenditures

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATIONFINANCIAL STATUS REPORT - 07/01/2002 THROUGH 7/31/2003

July


JulyExpenditures

Information TechnologyIBM Provide overall Project Management of multi-data projects

GRF 192.0 191.7 99.8% 32.0

Data SystemsViva USA, Inc. Development and maintenance of ILSI, Schools without Walls, web claims, web apps,

GRF 117.9 117.9 100.0% 0.0 ILEARN, Data Warehousing Sys., e-Grants Management System, FRIS and HRMSOther State 74.5 73.4 98.5% 0.0Federal 208.4 132.7 63.7% 8.4

Ashbaugh & Associates, Inc. Development and maintenance of the Teacher Certification Information System (TCIS) GRF 59.0 58.0 98.3% 9.3 and ISBE's Entity SystemOther State 20.9 20.9 100.0% 0.0Federal 50.0 24.3 48.6% 0.0

E-Technology Inc. Re-engineering & conversion of mainframe applications to LANGRF 15.0 15.0 100.0% 2.0Federal 84.2 70.8 84.1% 5.5

Data-Core Systems Inc. New and enhanced child nutrition system applicationFederal 119.0 119.0 100.0% 10.0

Data-Core Systems Inc. Enhancements & support of the CERTS SystemOther State 129.0 129.0 100.0% 10.9

Marucco Stoddard Ferenbach & Walsh, Inc. Enhancements and maintenance of school report card application

GRF 4.4 2.2 50.0% 0.0Federal 55.0 50.0 90.9% 0.0

The Innovation Group E-Grants SystemGRF 668.7 668.7 100.0% 76.4Federal 635.3 635.3 100.0% 54.7

SilverTrain Development & maintenance of web-based Child Nutrition Claim Entry SystemFederal 55.0 55.0 100.0% 9.5

VIVA, USA Development & maintenance of web-based Child Nutrition Claim Entry System Federal 56.9 56.9 100.0% 9.2

Technology SupportAccudata The key entry and key verification of data for applications on a project-

GRF 34.0 14.0 41.2% 0.3 to-project basisOther State 14.0 9.8 70.0% 0.0Federal 42.0 42.0 100.0% 0.0

Public InformationSerafin & Associates Advise, complement & assist efforts of the Public Information staff in

GRF 57.8 19.9 34.4% 0.0 areas such as media and other external relationsFederal 50.0 39.5 79.0% 0.0


JulyExpenditures

External RelationsAccountability Works, Inc. Review assessment alignment claims of test vendors & detailed

Federal 107.2 107.2 100.0% 107.2 review and comments on new RFSP

Data Analysis & Progress ReportingDeloitte Consulting Revamp the School Report Card into a web-based interactive system

Federal 720.1 669.2 92.9% 22.7

Governmental RelationsBarbour Griffith & Rogers, Inc. Assist ISBE with strategic counsel and tactical planning on legislative, long-term and

GRF 308.4 288.4 93.5% 18.7 political matters - Contract Renewal began 1/1/03

Organizational ReviewViva USA, Inc. Assist ISBE in developing and maintaining an ROE accounting system

GRF 77.6 77.6 100.0% 7.5Whiteside County ROE User support; test RAP program after upgrade & conversion of citrix

GRF 59.0 58.1 98.5% 13.8Berry Dunn McNeil & Parker EDP auditing assistance for the review of new system developments

GRF 114.7 70.4 61.4% 32.8

Standards Aligned LearningSouthern Illinois University Inform businesses and parents of goals and benefits of the Illinois Learning Standards

Federal 97.5 71.4 73.2% 0.0

Career Development & PreparationMetri Tech, Inc. Development of the Illinois Workplace Skills Assessment

Federal 100.0 100.0 100.0% 0.0Southern Illinois University Continue development of the Occupational Skill Standards

Federal 90.0 89.9 99.9% 1.8

e-LearningClass Com IL Virtual High School (IVHS) pre-packaged online courses

GRF 91.4 86.4 94.5% 0.0Learningstation Com, Inc. IL Virtual High School (IVHS) pre-packaged online courses

GRF 73.5 63.6 86.5% 0.0Apex Learning, Inc. IL Virtual High School (IVHS) pre-packaged online courses

GRF 85.1 85.1 100.0% 2.5E-College Com Development of the IVHS proprietary internet portal and leasing/licensing of a

GRF 485.0 474.1 97.8% 83.8 delivery platformFederal 125.0 72.6 58.1% 0.0

Eastern Illinois University IVHS curriculum development; preservice and inservice training for teachers; courseFederal 100.0 20.1 20.1% 6.2 development; & student services

Illinois State University State Challenge Grant Program of the Bill and Melinda Gates FoundationGRF 500.0 500.0 100.0% 0.0

Western Illinois University IVHS curriculum development; preservice and inservice training for teachers; courseFederal 155.1 136.3 87.9% 65.5 development; & student services


JulyExpenditures

University of Illinois IVHS curriculum development; preservice and inservice training for teachers; courseFederal 100.0 28.5 28.5% 28.5 development; & student services

Classroom Connect On-line instructional resources in three learning areasGRF 1,000.0 1,000.0 100.0% 250.0

Encyclopedia Britannica On-line instructional resources in three learning areasGRF 320.0 320.0 100.0% 0.0

Illinois State University IVHS curriculum development; preservice and inservice training for teachers; courseFederal 149.5 95.8 64.1% 20.7 development; & student services

Southern Illinois University IVHS curriculum development; preservice and inservice training for teachers; courseFederal 102.5 50.7 49.5% 50.7 development; & student services

Illinois State Museum Complete the projects created by the Museum Online Resources ProjectGRF 150.0 150.0 100.0% 90.1

John G. Shedd Aquarium Complete the projects created by the Museum Online Resources ProjectGRF 150.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0

Curriculum & InstructionNational Louis University Develop and pilot an IL K-1 Classroom-Based Beginning Reading Inventory Project

Federal 50.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0Dominion Digital Develop a training support and resource website to assist teachers in scoring the IL

Federal 62.6 62.6 100.0% 0.0 Snapshot of Early Literacy

Illinois State University State HIV/AIDS TrainingFederal 55.0 51.7 94.0% 0.0

University of Illinois External evaluation of REA grants -- conduct ongoing formative Federal 291.2 291.2 100.0% 67.0 and summative evaluation

Early ChildhoodUniversity of Illinois Illinois Early Learning Website maintenance

Federal 177.4 117.0 66.0% 0.0

New Learning OpportunitiesSangamon County ROE Fiscal Agent for Cook County GED Testing Program

GRF 283.6 248.7 87.7% 0.0Other State 520.0 520.0 100.0% 0.0

Special Education Compliance18 Hearing Officers Impartial Hearing Officers in the local-level due process hearing/Section 14-8.02 of

Federal 468.1 391.2 83.6% 48.6 the School CodeSouthern Illinois University Evaluation training of due process hearing officers

Federal 50.0 50.0 100.0% 0.011 - Mediation Agreements IDEA mandates ISBE to offer mediation services - Ten Contracts @ $5,000

Federal 49.9 23.1 46.3% 0.9 one other - $424


JulyExpenditures

Court Reporters Court reporters/transcripts per 23 Illinois Admin. Code 226, Subpart JFederal 85.0 75.5 88.8% 15.0

Marucco, Stoddard, Ferenbach Identify, enhance and align special education student and school data and & Walsh, Inc. develop a framework for integrating & analyzing critical indicators

Federal 120.5 103.5 85.9% 51.6Special Education ServicesSangamon County ROE Develop an Illinois Interagency Transition Training & Technical

Federal 125.8 72.6 57.7% 19.3 Assistance Team

Student AssessmentMetri Tech, Inc. Test development for ISAT and PSAE

Federal 377.3 377.3 100.0% 0.0NCS Pearson, Inc. Printing, testing and scoring of ISAT tests for students in grades 3, 5 & 8

GRF 5,513.4 4,203.6 76.2% 0.0Federal 550.0 525.4 95.5% 0.0

Metri Tech, Inc. Statistical design and analysis for ISAT - required by legislationGRF 279.0 279.0 100.0% 69.0

Measurement Incorporated Scoring of open-ended responses in reading, writing and mathematics for all students GRF 3,300.0 3,300.0 100.0% 260.0 in Grades 3, 5, & 8Federal 500.0 500.0 100.0% 500.0

NCS Pearson, Inc. Printing, testing and scoring of PSAE tests for all students in Grade 11GRF 1,829.4 1,829.4 100.0% 137.9Federal 50.0 50.0 100.0% 50.0

Metri Tech, Inc. Statistical design and analysis for PSAE - required by legislationGRF 128.7 128.7 100.0% 32.2

Measurement Incorporated Scoring of open-ended responses for PSAE testGRF 2,093.5 2,093.5 100.0% 282.7Federal 170.0 170.0 100.0% 170.0

NCS Pearson, Inc. Printing all test materials, monitoring the test administration and scoring the results GRF 247.9 247.1 99.7% 49.4 of IMAGEFederal 294.1 247.1 84.0% 0.0

Metri Tech, Inc. Technical and statistical services such as equating, item analysis and technical reportsGRF 40.0 40.0 100.0% 0.6Federal 38.8 38.8 100.0% 19.1

Measurement Incorporated Scoring of bilingual students' writing essaysGRF 120.0 120.0 100.0% 0.0Federal 87.3 87.3 100.1% 41.5

Metri Tech, Inc. Development of the IMAGE testGRF 40.0 40.0 100.0% 11.9Federal 72.4 72.4 100.0% 16.2

American College Testing ACT tests and Work Keys tests in reading and mathematicsGRF 4,700.0 4,445.0 94.6% 685.0

Metri Tech, Inc. Develop, administer, retrieve, analyze and score the Consumer Education Proficiency GRF 99.5 99.5 100.0% 24.9 Test


JulyExpenditures

McGraw Hill, LLC Develop IL K-2 Achievement Test SystemFederal 107.2 0.0 0.0% 0.0

Measured Progress, Inc. Assessment data collection/reporting, training, and conduct on-going evaluations &Federal 1,800.0 1,800.0 100.0% 369.8 make recommendations for modification - continuation of multi-year

Certificate Renewal & LeadershipManagement of America Inc. Evaluate the implementation of the certificate renewal system for IL teachers and

Other State 109.6 68.0 62.0% 16.9 effectiveness of components

Fiscal & Administrative ServicesAlzina Lease-Spfld Rent - Springfield

GRF 1,474.5 1,474.5 100.0% 0.0Other State 90.0 90.0 100.0% 0.0Federal 921.4 921.4 100.0% 0.0

New Age Security Services Security Services for SpringfieldGRF 50.0 50.0 100.0% 0.0Federal 40.0 36.4 91.0% 0.0

Xerox Corporation Copier maintenance/repairsGRF 182.0 159.6 87.7% 18.7Other State 5.0 4.5 90.0% 0.0Federal 31.5 31.1 98.7% 0.1

Warehouse Lease- Mason Warehouse LeaseGRF 70.8 70.8 100.0% 0.0Other State 11.0 11.0 100.0% 0.0Federal 25.0 25.0 100.0% 0.0

Parcel Pick-up & Delivery Parcel pick-up and delivery per agency request at published rate - multiple vendorsGRF 92.0 70.2 76.3% 0.0Federal 83.0 39.2 47.2% 0.0

Midwest Office Supply Office SuppliesGRF 115.0 107.0 93.0% 41.1Other State 5.0 5.0 100.0% 0.2

Auditor GeneralFederal 181.8 181.8 100.0% 181.8 Federal share for the annual audit

Nutrition Program & Support ServicesFidelis Corporation Maintain and enhance the USDA Commodity Distribution System

Federal 214.5 206.6 96.3% 0.0University of Illinois Direct mailing to 305,000 students who qualify for free meals under the National

Federal 60.0 60.0 100.0% 60.0 School Lunch ProgramSouthern Illinois University School Meals Initiative - conduct nutritional analysis

Federal 120.0 120.0 100.0% 73.2


JulyExpenditures

School Business & Support ServicesSuburban Cook County ROE Conduct pilot web-based School Inventory System

Other State 55.0 55.0 100.0% 17.4Federal 55.0 55.0 100.0% 2.4

Grants Breakdown:

General State Aid 3,206,300.0 3,206,258.2 100.0% 0.0 FormulaTitle I - Low Income 500,189.4 452,316.4 90.4% 10,895.1 FormulaChild Nutrition 425,000.0 394,048.0 92.7% 26,875.2 Formula--ReimbursementIDEA 396,871.4 326,607.5 82.3% 3,874.3 FormulaSpec Ed Personnel 303,506.9 303,506.9 100.0% 0.0 FormulaSpec Ed Extraordinary 225,712.0 225,711.9 100.0% 0.0 Mandated CategoricalTransportation Reg/Voc 219,908.5 219,908.5 100.0% 0.0 Formula Transportation Spec Ed 218,097.0 218,097.0 100.0% 0.0 FormulaEarly Childhood Block 183,505.7 179,251.2 97.7% 1,590.5 Block grant for Pre-K, parent trng. & prevention initiativeTitle II Quality Teachers 116,007.5 97,275.4 83.9% 1,008.3 FormulaSpec Ed Orphanage 104,763.2 68,443.0 65.3% 0.0 FormulaReading Imp. Block Grant 79,221.1 79,162.3 99.9% 0.0 FormulaADA Sch. Safety & Ed. Bl. 66,854.1 66,815.4 99.9% 0.0 FormulaEarly Intervention 64,447.3 64,447.3 100.0% 0.0 Transfer to the Department of Human ServicesVocational Education - State 50,014.1 49,562.7 99.1% 895.5 Formula Class Size Reduction 50,000.0 10,802.9 21.6% 2.0 FormulaSchool Tech. Rev. Loan 50,000.0 11,893.2 23.8% 0.0 Loans to schools to implement technologySp. Ed. Private Facility Tuition 47,134.4 47,134.4 100.0% 0.0 Formula Voc Ed - Federal 46,500.0 41,814.3 89.9% 1,681.8 Formula & Competitive - to improve student academic & career skillsTitle IV-21st Century 41,390.5 13,496.1 32.6% 3,514.0 CompetitiveTechnology Literacy 38,284.4 22,133.6 57.8% 314.3 Competitive & non-competitive grants to school districtsTitle I Reading First 35,843.8 28,209.5 78.7% 582.1 Competitive and formula grantsSchool Renovation 34,550.0 21,916.1 63.4% 633.1 Competitive grants to school districtsBilingual Education-Chicago 33,792.8 33,792.8 100.0% 0.0 Chicago Block GrantTextbook Loan - Reapprop. 27,785.3 27,521.2 99.0% 0.0 Payment for textbooks purchased during previous yearBilingual Ed.-Downstate 26,551.5 19,589.0 73.8% 250.2 Mandated CategoricalTitle IV - Safe and Drug Free 25,000.0 14,536.5 58.1% 519.1 FormulaPreschool - Spec Ed 25,000.0 17,751.8 71.0% 270.2 Formula--special education, 3-5 year-oldsSummer Bridges 24,764.6 24,104.3 97.3% -0.3 Grants to districts (based on ISAT reading scores)State Free Lunch & Breakfast 20,741.2 20,321.8 98.0% 406.1 Mandated Categorical--ReimbursementTitle II Eisenhower 20,000.0 2,274.1 11.4% 0.5 FormulaTitle V Innovative Programs 19,631.8 11,821.5 60.2% 208.0 FormulaTitle III - English Language Acq 19,041.2 17,753.9 93.2% 337.0 GrantGifted Education 19,000.6 14,533.4 76.5% 0.0 Formula grants to school districtsTruant/Dropout/Optional Ed 18,628.1 18,628.1 100.0% 0.0 Competitive -- at-risk students/dropout preventionTitle VI 18,600.0 3,007.0 16.2% 20.6 FormulaReading Excellence 17,830.0 12,828.4 71.9% 599.7 Competitive grants to school districtsTechnology for Success 17,263.0 16,560.3 95.9% 482.6 Northwestern Univ. (Collaboratory Project); IL Math & Science Academy (IVHS)Alternative Ed/Reg Safe Sch 16,160.9 16,059.9 99.4% 289.2 Formula


JulyExpenditures

Driver Education 15,750.0 15,744.8 100.0% 0.0 ReimbursementParent/Guardian Trans. 14,470.4 14,469.6 100.0% 0.0 Formula based on appropriation level divided by eligible studentsOrphanage Tuition 13,988.2 10,724.2 76.7% 0.0 Reimbursement to school districts for children residing in orphanagesSchool to Work - Federal 13,400.0 2,084.2 15.6% 239.4 FormulaROE School Services 12,070.4 12,023.8 99.6% 160.3 Formula - ROE OperationsROE Salaries 7,850.0 7,791.7 99.3% 0.0 Salaries for ROE'sCareer Awareness & Dev 7,067.7 6,546.5 92.6% 47.0 Grants to formula reimbursement, work-based learning, Jobs for IL graduatesStandards Assmt & Acct 7,009.7 6,699.3 95.6% 685.0 Grants for K-6 Arts, Learn Improve, Learning Standards, Student/Teacher AssessmentState Charter Schools 6,271.8 5,902.5 94.1% 25.0 Grants - Start-up fundsSpec Ed Summer Sch 5,830.4 5,830.4 100.0% 0.0 Formula - Special education students enrolled in summer sessionsTeachers' Acad for Math/Sci 5,307.7 5,113.1 96.3% 1,385.5 Grant to Teachers' Academy for Mathematics and ScienceVoc Ed - Federal Tech Prep 5,000.0 3,956.3 79.1% 128.0 Grants - assists students in achieving learning/occupational skills standardsEmergency Financial Asst/Suppl 4,528.0 4,528.0 100.0% 0.0 Loan SupplementalEmergency Financial Asst 3,505.0 1,735.5 49.5% 0.0 Formula and loans to school districtsTeacher Education 3,335.0 2,822.1 84.6% 401.4 Reimb. for Nat'l Bd Certification costs; grant for Teacher of the YearMcKinney Homeless Ed 3,000.0 1,661.9 55.4% 4.6 Competitive grants to school districtsIl Scholars (Golden Apple) 2,914.3 2,914.3 100.0% 0.0 Grant to Golden Apple Foundation - to recruit minority students into teach careersPhilip Rock Center 2,855.5 2,855.5 100.0% 0.0 Targeted InitiativeRefugee Children 2,500.0 1,160.0 36.0% 49.0 GrantsCharter Schls-Federal 2,286.4 900.8 39.4% 341.9 CompetitiveSubstance Abuse & Vio Prev 2,146.4 2,146.4 100.0% 0.0 Competitive grants - train staff in substance abuse and violence preventionLearn & Serve America 2,000.0 863.9 94.1% 40.3 Competitive grantsAgriculture Education 1,881.2 1,881.2 100.0% 0.0 Grants to school districts IDEA Part D 1,752.4 1,386.6 79.1% 101.5 ReimbursementReorganization Incentive 1,669.4 1,656.1 99.2% 36.5 Grants to districts to encourage reorganization through consolidation/annexationISBE Regional Services 1,344.3 1,334.9 99.3% 3.0 Grants to ROE and ISC-administer training, technology support, audits, GED testingFlex. & Acct Rural Ed. 1,308.1 1,234.1 94.3% 92.8 Grants to school districtsTemporary Relocation 1,130.0 612.3 54.2% 99.8 Formula grants for school emergency relocationMat'ls for the Visually Impaired 1,121.0 1,121.0 100.0% 0.0 Targeted Initiative--Spfld. 186Character Education 1,000.0 6.2 0.6% 0.0 GrantsParental Involvement 916.3 916.0 100.0% 0.0 Grant to increase community and parental involvement with local schoolsAdvanced Placement Fee 700.0 390.4 55.8% 0.0 Fee reimbursement for Adv Placement Exam & Int'l Baccalaureate examMinority Transition 578.8 578.8 100.0% 159.2 Grants - serves disadvantage students from selected Chicago HS & elem. schoolsTransition to Teaching 531.5 196.8 37.0% 0.0 Grant to Illinois Resource Center Illinois Breakfast Incentive 473.5 302.1 63.8% 140.3 Reimbursement & grant to public and private schools & child-care instTeach America 450.0 450.0 100.0% 0.0 Grant for Teach for AmericaIl Learning Partnership 385.9 385.9 100.0% 0.0 Grant to Illinois Learning PartnershipDeaf/Blind 305.0 297.4 97.5% 0.0 Grant to Philip J. Rock Center Building Linkages 300.0 295.4 98.5% 0.0 Competitive grants to national pilot sitesFamily Literacy 224.3 224.3 100.0% 0.0 Contracts and/or grants to providersTax Equivalent Grants 222.6 222.5 100.0% 0.0 Grant to Chaney-Monge School DistrictMetro East Consortium 217.1 217.1 100.0% 0.0 Grant to provide staff development to increase student achievement in MECCARecording - Blind & Dyslexic 168.8 168.8 100.0% 0.0 Grant to increase achievement of students with visual impairmentsAmerican Education Inst. 150.0 150.0 100.0% 0.0 Payment to Chicago Public SchoolsIl Economic Ed. Prog 144.7 144.7 100.0% 0.0 Grant to Illinois Council on Economic EducationIllinois Virtual High School 100.0 100.0 100.0% 0.0 GrantsUniversal Preschool 89.6 89.6 100.0% 0.0 Payment to Department of Human ServicesMiddle Level Schools 72.4 72.4 100.0% 72.4Special Purpose Trust 6.1 6.1 100.0% 0.0 Fees and Trusts

- 133 -

692

650644 640 639 638

630

604611

527 529 532 535

522 520

500

550

600

650

700

750

May-02

Jun-02 Jul

-02Au

g-02

Sep-0

2Oct-0

2No

v-02

Dec-0

2Jan

-03Feb

-03Mar-

03Ap

r-03

May-03

Jun-03 Jul

-03

Monthly Headcount Graph

- 134 -


AGENCY STAFF DETAIL AS OF JULY 2003

Mgmt. Prof. Support GRF Non-GRF Total SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE State Superintendent 1 0 3 4 0 4 Board Services 0 1 0 1 0 1 Governmental Relations 1 0 1 2 0 2 Internal Audit 1 5 1 7 0 7

Sub-Total 3 6 5 14 0 14

GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel & Legal 1 14 4 15 4 19

Sub-Total 1 14 4 15 4 19

PUBLIC INFORMATION Public Information Admin 1 0 1 2 0 2 Public Service & Communications 1 2 3 6 0 6 Multi-Media 1 6 1 7 1 8

Sub-Total 3 8 5 15 1 16

HUMAN RESOURCES Human Resources Admin. 1 1 1 3 0 3 Personnel 1 4 7 11 1 12

Sub-Total 2 5 8 14 1 15

STANDARDS ALIGNED LEARNING Standards Aligned Learning Admin 1 0 1 1 1 2 Career Development & Preparation 1 9 3 4 9 13 E-Learning 1 2 2 4 1 5 Curriculum & Instruction 0 14 3 6 11 17 Early Childhood Education 1 11 2 5 9 14 English Language Learning 1 8 1 0 10 10

Sub-Total 5 44 12 20 41 61

CERTIFICATION & PROFESSIONAL DEV. Cert. & Professional Dev. Admin. 1 0 1 2 0 2 Teacher Certification Services 1 14 13 22 6 28 Professional Preparation & Recruitment 0 12 4 15 1 16

- 135 -

Sub-Total 2 26 18 39 7 46

SPECIALIZED SUPPORT Specialized Support Admin 1 0 1 0 2 2 Special Education Services - Spfld. 2 18 4 0 24 24 Special Education Services - Chgo. 1 13 1 0 15 15

Sub-Total 4 31 6 0 41 41

PLANNING & PERFORMANCE Student & School Progress Admin. 1 0 0 0 1 1 Data Analysis & Progress Reporting 1 11 4 11 5 16 Regional Office Services 0 3 1 4 0 4 New Learning Opportunities 1 8 2 8 3 11 Accountability 2 9 4 15 0 15 Student Assessment 1 8 2 9 2 11 System of Support 1 18 4 2 21 23

Sub-Total 7 57 17 49 32 81

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Information Technology Admin. 1 0 1 2 0 2 Data Systems 4 29 2 28 7 35 Technology Support 2 15 3 17 3 20

Sub-Total 7 44 6 47 10 57

OPERATIONS Operations Administration 1 0 0 1 0 1 Agency Finance & Administration 1 0 1 2 0 2 Budget & Financial Management 2 5 0 4 3 7 Fiscal and & Administrative Services 3 16 26 36 9 45 Funding and Disbursements 3 17 14 13 21 34 School Funding & Finance Admin. 1 0 1 2 0 2 Nutrition Programs & Support 3 19 6 0 28 28 School Business & Support Services 2 18 2 16 6 22 External Assurance 3 23 3 7 22 29

Sub-Total 19 98 53 81 89 170

GRAND TOTAL, ALL CENTERS 53 333 134 294 226 520 10% 64% 26% 57% 43% 100% Includes one Leave of Absence Nutrition & Support Services (Hancock)

- 136 -

Personnel Transactions Transaction Data: FY01 FY02 FY03 FY03 * Begin Year 787 739 650 522 Hire Externally 27 5 29 6 Recall 0 0 11 0 Retire -35 -37 -128 -1 Resign -35 -21 -13 -3 Discharge -2 -9 -2 0 Layoff 0 -25 -22 -4 Death -3 -2 -3 0 End Year 739 650 522 520 * Through July Changes to Key Personnel: Status of Personal Services:

The General Assembly passed the ISBE Operations Budget as recommended by the Governor, a reduction of $7.9 M in personal services and related lines. This required layoffs of 25 despite shifting many staff to federal and other non-general funds. Subsequently, the Governor vetoed several appropriations equal to $4.0 M in personal services and related lines and we are in the process of layoffs of at least 30. Management & Organizational Issues: Annual Management and Exempt evaluations are in process.

- 137 -


August 20, 2003

TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Robert E. Schiller, Superintendent David Wood, Director Agenda Topic: Review of ISBE’s Capacity to Provide Services as Mandated by

the School Code Materials: Standards, Assessment and Accountability Spreadsheet Staff Contact(s): David Wood and Lee Patton Purpose of Agenda Item To describe the agency’s capacity to perform various statutory functions in FY04 as a consequence of the vetoes including those associated with Private Business and Vocational Schools (PBVS) and as an ROE for the Chicago Public Schools (CPS). Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item The Board will understand short and long term issues associated with these functions and authorize the Superintendent to take any other action necessary to have these functions continue in FY04. Background Information The General Assembly passed the FY04 ISBE Operations Budget as recommended by the Governor. Subsequently, the Governor vetoed a number of appropriations which will significantly impact the ability of the agency to perform various functions mandated by law. The Governor specifically eliminated the FY04 appropriation for ISBE Regional Services that funded ISBE as the ROE for CPS. The primary functions eliminated were the office (4 staff) in Chicago who provides the onsite certification services for Chicago teachers, the contract with the Sangamon County ROE to administer the GED exam in Chicago, and the one ISBE staff who organized the training of bus drivers who provide contract transportation services to CPS. The background of the GED issue both as an ROE function in Chicago and as a statewide issue is found in a separate Board Item. The recommendation is to both increase the GED fee from $35.00 to $70.00 and require a contribution from all other

- 138 -

ROE to maintain a viable system throughout the state and to fund certain statewide activities including one ISBE staff to coordinate the program. To legally operate a school bus, a driver must be trained each year in school bus safety with an ISBE designed curriculum by an ISBE certified instructor. Over 60 contractors provide transportation services to CPS and all have a business need to have their drivers trained. In the past, an ISBE staff person scheduled and monitored this training, collected the statutory $4.00 fee, and paid the trainers. In the short term, ISBE has agreed with Robert Ingraffia the Suburban Cook County ROE for that office to assume responsibility for this program in FY04 for all of Cook County including the City of Chicago. ISBE will lose one staff member and contribute only the $12,000 in fees available to it for the year. The Suburban Cook ROE will pick up all remaining costs. The Teacher Certification function is a service issue for the teachers in Chicago. The ISBE office will close and the work will be forwarded to Springfield. This will not only be inconvenient to teachers but given other reductions in the certification program, it is likely that turn around will increase significantly. One alternative is for Chicago teachers to go to other ROE Offices in the suburbs. To avoid these alternatives, CPS is willing to pay ISBE to continue this office and service to their teachers and maintain this office. Unfortunately, ISBE has no mechanism to accept such a payment because the Governor also eliminated the two ISBE state special purposes and trust funds that could have been used to accept non-GRF funds to pay for these programs. Instead we are facilitating conversations between CPS and the Suburban Cook County ROE to operate this office in Chicago at CPS expense. In addition to eliminating funding for the statutory services ISBE is responsible for as the ROE for CPS, the Governor specifically eliminated the fee portion of the PBVS program which is also required by the School Code (105 ILCS 425/1.01 et. seq.). In addition to the fee fund, administration of the program is also supported by GRF from the Standards, Assessment and Accountability line. The Governor reduced this line by $1.1 M. At a special Board Meeting in July, the Superintendent and Board agreed to eliminate the entire PBVS program and all seven staff because the special fee fund appropriation was eliminated by the Governor and because the program was less of a priority than other services to public schools funded from this line. The Board also chose to eliminate the Non-Public School Recognition program (4 staff) which was also funded from the Standards, Assessment and Accountability line because it is not mandated in law and was also viewed as less of a priority than other services to public schools. The attached spreadsheet illustrates how the Standards, Assessment and Accountability line will be used after the $1.1 M veto. Next Steps Continue to update the Board on the status of these functions.

Monthly Status Report on Rulemaking August 2003

Title and Part Number of Rules

Current Status Action Needed This Month

Description/Comments

Transitional Bilingual Education (Part 228)

Rulemaking is complete; effective June 20, 2003

None Changes in requirements for parental notification; will respond to NCLB and P.A. 92-604

Alternative Learning Opportunities Program (Part 240)

Rulemaking is complete; effective June 23, 2003

None Reg’l supts to claim the GSA when they operate programs

Standards for Certification in Specific Teaching Fields (Part 27)

Adopted amendments pending review by parties in Corey H.

None General education standards for special education teachers; will respond to determination of Court Monitor of June 22, 2000

Certification (Part 25) Rulemaking is complete; effective July 21, 2003

None NCATE-related procedural changes; miscellaneous updating

Certification (Part 25) Emergency amendments effective June 26, 2003; public comment on accompanying regular amendments ends August 25; expect adoption in September

None Clarification to answer questions about applicability of various provisions; major required per NCLB

Public Information, Rulemaking and Organization (Part 5000)

Presented for adoption (no public comment period required)

Adoption “Internal” rulemaking; procedure for responding to external requests for rulemaking

Title and Part Number of Rules

Current Status Action Needed This Month

Description/Comments

Public Schools Evaluation, Recognition and Supervision (Part 1)

Expect initial review in fall 2003

Authorization for public comment

Updating and clarification of certification-related provisions

Health/Life Safety Code for Public Schools (Part 180)

Expect initial review later this year

None Updating and changes identified by staff

Certification (Part 25) Expect initial review in fall 2003

Authorization for public comment

Additional revisions relevant to standards-based system

Electronic Transmission of Data (new Part 501)


None Responds to P.A. 92-121; standards for transmission and encryption

Program Accounting Manual (Part 110)

Expect initial review after Auditor General conducts corresponding rulemaking

None Responds to P.A. 92-544; transfer of responsibility for ROE audits

Vocational Education (Part 254)


None Comprehensive updating

aug. 20, 2003 isbe board packet · the monitoring instruments and conducted staff training...

Documents